/sci/ - Science & Math

stable fusion reactor

fusion

the country to build the first stable fusion reactors will instantly become number 1.

It would depend where the solar panels are placed. If widespread space-based GEO solar power was cheaper and supplied more energy, then solar would probably be better. However a stable fusion reactor is better otherwise.

Fusion eh?

Too bad there will never be one because loloillobbies that put their profits before the human race and the planet Earth will do everything in their power (and they have a lot of power) to stop one from being made as it would make a lot of oil in the world obsolete

Fusion will always win, because it is way more awesome than boring old solar.

>>2235175
>the sun
>a continuous fusion reaction that lasts for nearly ten billion years producing far more raw power than any amount of Earth-based fusion reactors

>>2235187

But only a fraction of it reaches the earth

>>2235187
Solar panels are lame. Get over it.

>>2235194
MERCURY-BASED SOLAR POWER

>>2235187
yes, but with solar panels we would only get a small fraction of that. even if they were 100% efficient.

>>2235197
SOL-BASED MERCURY POWER!

>>2235194

The fraction of the suns rays reaching the Earth in a single day, fully harnessed, would provide enough energy to handle our projected needs for the next 25 years.

Yeah, there's a lot more energy to be had from the Sun.

>>2235167

Well there are several Thorium reactors running around the world right now and those certainly hold alot of promise for replacing fossil fuels. Don't worry, scilon, they know they can profit from such things too.

>>2235240
Being able to create energy independent from the sun is something much more valuable for us than being dependent on the sun and our distance to it. With fusion reactor technology, we'd have the freedom to survive in places where the sun don't shine.

>>2235247
>thorium

>>2235240
If all that was practical to harness then you would have a point, but it's not. If fusion power ever becomes possible it can used in a more conventional and convenient way, and will be able to meet energy needs for far more than a mere 25 years.

>>2235247
I'll never understand some people's obsession with thorium. It's like you people don't realize the claims being made are hyped up.

It makes sense for India because they don't have any uranium deposits, but a lot of countries don't have that problem.

>>2235262
>bawwww thorium is bad because it's only a little bit better than uranium
shut up, just... shut up

>>2235270
What do you not understand about hype? I'm not saying it's bad; just that it's not as good as people think it is.

>>2235258

No you don't understand what I mean.

This is totally ridiculous and I'm only saying this to make what I was saying more clear: If you had a 100% efficient solar panel the size of the surface of the Earth being hit by the sun at any one time and you could store the energy hitting it forever then you'd only need to turn it on for a single day to power the world for 25 years. Now this is obviously nto feasible but you can understand from this that only small solar panels would be needed to provide for our needs right here on Earth.

With respect to, say, space travel, yes Fusion reactors would be particularly useful. Certainly we should try to develop both so that we'll have fusion technology for any sort of sustained operations performed in the dark and a much more manageable technology for the rest.

>>2235262

Much of the world's Thorium is in the US, nub.

Which one is better is a complicated question. To know this, you must first know that it is only better to an individual because of what he or she values. So first, determine what you value of out of an energy source down to graphs for each stat. Now you can start to really look at this kind of problem. Hint: they do different things and you may choose different ones for different utility.

>the stable fusion reactor would only be used to heat water to power a turbine and produce electricity!!!
>fucking science!

>>2235321
That's nice, but so what? We also have reasonably abundant uranium deposits, and Canada has large uranium deposits. We don't need thorium reactors. India however does because they don't have any uranium deposits.

>>2235336
Build at 21st century machine but rely on 19th century technology to get power from it. Brilliant!

But seriously, we're only forced to do that because of dirty D-T reactions that produce neutrons. Fusion's true potential is in direct energy conversion using more advanced fuels like D-He3 that don't produce neutrons.

>>2235369

What people like about Thorium is that it's much more abundant in the Earth's crust than Uranium and, as Rubbia has said (nobel winner), one ton of Thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tonnes of Uranium. Even supposing, say, a 500% error in his calculation that's still significantly more energy.

>>2235395
He's comparing a reprocessing cycle with thorium to the once through cycle often used with uranium. Uranium can also be reprocessed. In fact it can be reprocessed much more easily than thorium because it's not as radioactive when it first comes out of the reactor. Just because someone has won a Nobel Prize doesn't mean they're right about everything they express an opinion about.

The relative abundance of thorium compared to uranium is a good selling point from an availability viewpoint, but a horrible point from a weapons nonproliferation viewpoint. It would become much harder to control the supply of nuclear fuel.

Don't forget, thorium also sounds cooler than uranium.

>>2235373
> Fusion's true potential is in direct energy conversion using more advanced fuels like D-He3 that don't produce neutrons.

The D+He3 reaction doesn't produce neutrons, but it's hard to obtain a D+He3 reaction without any D+D reactions, which do produce neutrons.

The ideal aneutronic reaction is H1+B11->3He4, as neither the fuels nor the product can cause significant side reactions. The downside is that it has a much lower power density than reactions involving lighter isotopes (D+He3 is 80 times lower than D+T, H+B11 is 2500 times lower).

All current projects focus on D+T, as that's by far the easiest. Other reactions will require larger reactors and higher pressure.

>>2235429
Not really.

>>2235440
It's possible that we won't have to produce our own He3. It's been theorized that there are deep sea deposits, and we know it's available on the moon. The moon option is hideously expensive of course, so I doubt that will ever be used for power plants on Earth.

As far as I know no one is looking at H-B11 because the temperatures required are so high it's completely impractical for any currently conceived technique.

>>2235424

I never said that winning a Nobel prize makes you right about everything but it probably makes you more right about alot of things than someone like you or me, especially if it pertains to his field of expertise.

It's actually much better from a proliferation stand point since the reaction doesn't create weapons-grade by-products. At least that's my understanding of the process.

>>2235553
Your standard uranium fueled power reactor doesn't create weapons grade plutonium either. That's not the point. Anyone that has the ability to create low enrichment fuel can easily produce weapons grade fuel as well. That's why everyone is freaking out about Iran and North Korea having the ability to produce their own nuclear fuel.

Depends which one happens to be cheaper. However, if we assume that they produce the same amount of energy per cost. Then I would have to go with Fusion reactor. Solar panels have a limited life ~5 years, and have lots of very toxic chemicals in them. Also, they dont work at night. However, in the real world, it would likely be both. Fusion reactors for developed countries, solar panels for underdeveloped. Because solar panels pretty much run themselves, you just gotta keep em clean. A fusion reactor would require highly trained professionals and what not.

Fusion, I don't see how anyone else could think differently.

Solar power is heavily flawed. No power generation at night, extremely reduced in bad weather, the power flow is subject to change at different times of the day and year because of a difference in airmass. Any solution involving storage of energy would be unfeasible, since a few days straight of bad weather would exaust every realistic reserve.

>>2235569
Spaaaaaaaaace baaaaaaaaaased

>>2235585
Is a silly idea. It'll never be economical compared to our other options.

>>2235585
Dangerous and subject to similar problems when sending the power down.

I can't help but notice that you seem to believe in every retarded optimistic idea that pops up. You're worse than the trolls, because you, unlike them, probably REALLY believe in this kind of shit.

>>2235606

e's a singularitarian.

>>2235606
>implying idealism is bad

Fuck you and your shit.

>>2235568

Well I suppose our develoment of the technology doesn't really have an effect on the practices of other countries, does it.

Whether we use these reactors or not, other countries can harvest and enrich Thorium at their discretion. The question is whether or not we're benefiting from the cheaper and more efficient source.

Thorium is certainly more abundant and most likely (based on opinions carrying more weight than your own) more energy dense. Why, given those facts, do you continue to oppose it?

>>2235612
Idealism or gullibility?

>>2235622
Idealism.

>>2235617
I'm not opposing it. I'm saying it's not what people are hyping it as, which is some sort of miracle solution to nuclear power's current problems. There are very practical reasons why it hasn't been given much attention, so people should keep those in mind.

>>2235167
You're an idiot.
Get out of /sci/ go see /x/ instead.

Of course they'll build fusion reactors, who do you think is funding the research now?
Protip: oil companies would care about oil going bye bye. ENERGY companies don't care where the energy comes from as long as it's cheap to make and they control it.
Fusion is great for an energy company, they could make lots of power with less regulation.

>>2235606
Most problems can be solved. It is a simple matter of know-how and engineering.
I'm sure your great great great grandfather was twiddling his moustache while nudging his fellows about the idea of self-powered carriages that don't require horses.

>>2235657
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. We could have replaced the Panama Canal with an even bigger one that could allow the largest supertankers through with ease. We'd just have to use nuclear bombs to dig it.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

>>2235657
>Most problems can be solved. It is a simple matter of know-how and engineering.

Let me guess, you're not even out of HS yet.

>>2235674
Graduated. YOU SEEM UPSET
>>2235676
>We could have replaced the Panama Canal with an even bigger one that could allow the largest supertankers through with ease. We'd just have to use nuclear bombs to dig it.

I'm liking this idea.

>>2235634

Right, it's not a miracle solution but it may be a better solution.

What practical reasons are those, though?

>>2235681
Give it a few years, the real world will wipe that smug optimism off you.

>>2235681
That's it. From this point on I'm just going to assume you're a troll. No one can possibly be this infuriatingly stupid.

>>2235689
I was trolling you, derp.
>>2235687
I'm betting otherwise.

>>2235153
In short the sun has more potential since it is a much larger fusion reaction.
However, photovoltaic cells will never harness that potential and still be as portable as localized fusion reactors.
A large component of energy systems is distribution, there will always be limits to the usefulness of a power source if it cannot be placed near locations where it is needed.
Cost starts to become a huge factor as well as energy lost in transport.

>>2235695

Yes but keep in mind, transmission losses can be highly mitigated with the proper use of transformer technology. You just need a big, square, iron bar and a shit load of loops and you have a really high voltage and, consequently, a really low resistance.

Solar capture has zero chance of catastrophic failure. Fusion plants would have small (but not zero) chances of catastrophic failure which could destroy a lot of shit. Does this make any difference?

Personally I'd prefer fusion though because versatility for extraterrestrial shizzle.

>>2235706

Well there's always the small possibility of a meltdown but that's not the same thing as a reactor going critical, which is impossible.

>>2235706
Solar panels contains some really nasty toxins. Lets say you have some catastrophe that destroys all the solar panels. Now you have toxic chemicals all over the place.

Fusion will be in containment buildings similar to conventional nuclear plants. Any catastrophic disaster will be kept in that building.

>>2235713
Titanic couldn't be sunk. But the point remains - does risk of a blow-up make any difference to which is better?

>>2235734
Fair point about the toxins, but the things that could cause the catastrophe with solar panels are not integral to the power generation in the same way as the risks to a fusion plant. A fusion plant has a greatly increased chance of going wrong in a bad way. How big an area would get screwed if a big fusion plant went wrong? (Genuine question lol)

>>2235736
The Titanic wasn't engineered to be unsinkable. That was just a claim made by whatever passed for a marketing team back then.

A fusion reactor can not blow up, period. It's physically impossible. At most you'll get a loss of confinement and the reaction will kill itself in microseconds.

>>2235756

Correct.

>>2235756
They genuinely thought the (then new) compartmentalising of the hull made it "impossible" to sink. Also, you're at risk of taking an analogy and treating it as exactly the same situation as the one being discussed and thinking that if you microanalyse the analogy you'll find some sort of answers for the actual problem. No. Please. No.

>the reaction will kill itself in microseconds.

you hope.