Nuclear Fusion ... Interested? ... This is it, this is the spot to explore ...

[North_Sky]

⚛ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a30705490/nuclear-fusion-iter-reactor-tokamak/

I subscribe to this subject and every day I receive new articles about this fantastic, tremendous powerful energy of the future. So I thought to myself why not explore with science people.
It encompasses a lot, and leads to comparisons with other energies (solar, wind, water, fuel, seaweed, waves, etc.). ...And the potential advantages and disadvantages, plus the necessary safety measures to prevent catastrophic accidents.

I know few members here connected to nuclear plants (work experience and some knowledge); they are most welcome to share their feedback and their vision towards nuclear fusion. And everyone else of course; it's an exploration, a discussion to expand our knowledge on this and in comparison with other sources of energy.

Me I think it's the real deal. I watched several documentaries on renewable energies and what's best for our environment, and in time I will share some of those docs.

First let's see the level of interest in a science audio forum...ASR from the gentle members.

Stay safe

 

[North_Sky]

 

[A800]

But what about the radiation (/products)?

 

[North_Sky]

What radiation?
¤ https://www.iaea.org/topics/energy/fusion/faqs

The products I don't think they are on the market yet?

 

[A800]

There will be radiation and radiation products everywhere.
It's not as "clean" as they try to tell you on that page.

 

[North_Sky]

Cool, get me the scientific facts, I can take it.

And if you know of a cleaner energy, by all means be my guest.

 

[maxxevv]

What radiation?
¤ https://www.iaea.org/topics/energy/fusion/faqs

The products I don't think they are on the market yet?

The Neutron byproduct of the reaction will be blasting the containment vessel relentlessly. Many of the suitable materials used to build the core can turn into radioactive isotopes with long term neutron bombardment. So the reactor isn't perpetual nor completely radioactive waste free.
There are some are some mitigation studies on that but not sure how far have they gone to eradicate that.

 

[North_Sky]

That's what we're here to explore ...
We got time.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Nuclear fusion has been just 10 years away since the 1950's. Somehow one must mimic on earth the gravitational forces of our sun to fuse hydrogen to helium and create energy. Maybe some day. The only realistic base power solution is current nuclear power plant technology. It simply is not politically possible at this time. Under current policy, "green" feel good energy with no base load capacity is backed up with coal or natural gas plants. Germany uses dirty brown coal plants for base load. The only reason Germany's numbers looked good for awhile was caused by shutting down Soviet era plants in East Germany after reunification.

 

[maxxevv]

Cool, get me the scientific facts, I can take it.

And if you know of a cleaner energy, by all means be my guest.

https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201610/fusion.cfm

 

[North_Sky]

Alright, we're starting to go somewhere ...
¤ https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50267017

And from my opening article ...

“To get the atoms whipping around the inner chamber of the Russian-nesting-doll-like machine, a magnet will drive 15 million amperes of electricity through them,” Wired reports. “They'll also be zapped by 24 microwave generators and three semitruck-sized particle guns, until they reach 270 million degrees F and, avec optimisme, crash into each other, releasing heaps of energy.”

That's hot, sun's surface hot.

 

[maxxevv]

Alright, we're starting to go somewhere ...
¤ https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50267017

And from my opening article ...

“To get the atoms whipping around the inner chamber of the Russian-nesting-doll-like machine, a magnet will drive 15 million amperes of electricity through them,” Wired reports. “They'll also be zapped by 24 microwave generators and three semitruck-sized particle guns, until they reach 270 million degrees F and, avec optimisme, crash into each other, releasing heaps of energy.”

That's hot, sun's surface hot.

Actually no. That's way, way hotter than the Sun's surface. Its probably not even that high in the Sun's core either.

Main reason that fusion can occur in stars is the immense gravity that they have in their cores. Its this gravitational induced compression and resultant heat that eventually sparks a fusion process. That's why we succeeded with Thermonuclear bombs. A fission explosion seeds the fusion process. The core of a Thermonuclear bomb explosion is probably very close to what its like in the core of a star and temperature wise too.

We can't reproduce such pressures on the scale of a controlled and sustained nuclear fusion process yet, hence we are using temperatures to offset for it.
That's why one of the alternative fusion spark processes explored was the use of high power lasers to mimic the pressure and heat in the core of stars.

Addendum:

Although I really, really want viable fusion reactors to succeed and proliferate as an energy source.

The inner instinctive geek in me says that we won't get very far from what we are at now without cracking the centuries old question about the nature of gravity. Until we can manipulate gravity like we are doing with magnetic fields, I think sustainable nuclear fusion will remain a step short.

 

[Wombat]

Cool, get me the scientific facts, I can take it.

And if you know of a cleaner energy, by all means be my guest.

Solar radiation at the earth's surface. Nuclear radiation energy with the nasty artifacts placed well away.

Wind. Needs storage for wider application. I'd like to know if research has been conducted on how taking energy from windstreams impacts ecosystems.

Hydro, tidal, geothermal - all have their own issues but the are considered 'clean'.

Hydrogen fueled fuel-cells - depends on 'cleanly' produced hydrogen.

One other possibility: https://www.power-technology.com/features/ammonia-next-key-player-energy-storage/

I do not consider energy produced on earth by fusion reactors to be clean, as extremely toxic long lasting waste is a byproduct.

 

[kevinh]

Fusion may or may not happen in your lifetime, probably not in my life time. A viable approach is a combination of Liquid thorium reactors and Breeder reactors in a 10 Thorium to 1 Plutonium Breeder Reactor. much less radioactive waste and enough fuel available for a few million years.

Short overview and a more detailed look. These throium reactors are being proposed by in a number of countries with different designs.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

I hope so

 

[Wes]

There will be radiation and radiation products everywhere.
It's not as "clean" as they try to tell you on that page.

need to use one of those magic bottles

 

[Wombat]

Leave it to future generations to deal with.

It is amazing watching proponents of current nuclear(fission) power generation possibilities downplaying this obvious long term risk outcome for short-term profit.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

As far as I'm aware, the waste products from fusion are Helium and neutrons. What are the long term risks of producing these?

 

[tomtoo]

As far as I'm aware, the waste products from fusion are Helium and neutrons. What are the long term risks of producing these?

The neutrons activate the surrounding reactor walls. But if remember right the activated material is not as long highly active as the fuel rods in fission reactors.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation
So there will be radioactive waste, but much less and more easy to handle.

 

[maxxevv]

The neutrons activate the surrounding reactor walls. But if remember right the activated material is not as long highly active as the fuel rods in fission reactors.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation
So there will be radioactive waste, but much less and more easy to handle.

That is not quite correct.

There will be more radioactive waste on a volumetric basis. You are talking about structural pieces that need to be replaced. Not fuel rods like in fission reactors. Imagine a big 4000 sq feet volume of a house in radioactive artifacts.

HOWEVER, these are less radioactive in their inherent potency and their half-lives will be a fair bit shorter. In terms of decades rather than thousands of years for uranium / plutonium waste.

It will present a different kind of containment and storage issue. Volume versus longevity. Whichever is easier to handle ? I'm not sure about that.