Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LegoLord]

So, soon we're going to have fusion reactors.  These are supposed to create tremendous amounts of energy.  Additionally, the methods for that would eventually allow junk that can't be recycled to be used for energy (some foams, plastics, etc).  I believe the specifics are classified as I haven't found anything describing anything beyond "it works with lots of heat directed at small point."

The only possible problem is somewhat paranoid and unlikely, but possible;  What if something goes wrong with the design, and it essentially becomes a giant H-bomb?  How big will the blast be?  How far from settled land would it have to be to remove the majority of the risk from those not working on the site?

On the other hand, this could be the solution to all of man's energy needs, plus allow for potential Star-Trekish goodies, like giant spaceships and space stations (as a side note, the research that led to a lot of modern technology is inspired by Star Trek, such as MRIs, and a surprising amount from the show actually might be around within 100 years, hence why I said Star Trekish and not Star Warish).

[Cthulhu]

I'm assuming it operates on the same principle as a fission plant on the subject of explosions.  Namely, it's impossible for a plant to explode like a bomb.

[ein]

Cold fusion is what we need.
Regular fusion creates 2 metric shit-tonnes of thermal energy.

[LegoLord]

Cold fusion is what we need.
Regular fusion creates 2 metric shit-tonnes of thermal energy.

The heat is generally what's used.  Heat from the reactor heats water, evaporating it into steam, which rises rapidly enough to turn turbines that produce electricity.

It's how every other type of power plant works.

[ein]

That is true, but if it's too hot, you end up with a reactor as hot as the centre of the sun.
That's why we need cold fusion. It still produces the needed energy, but without getting so hot as to burn through any substance known to man.

[A_Fey_Dwarf]

Meh, cold fusion is a myth. It never happened, the experiment that made it famous, was not actually cold fusion.

[Duke 2.0]

 I thought the ability to burn through any substance known to man would be helpful in taking down plastics and unrecyclables.

 But yes, reactors lack densely packed explosives around fissile materials and plutonium as to smack them together hard enough to cause the whole reaction to occur in a fraction of a second, annihilating a few pounds of matter directly into energy. Reactors work around doing that same reaction, only much, much slower thanks to the lack of explosives smacking the materials together.

 Edit: Now meltdowns, when people dick around with controls they are never really meant to dick around with and cause the cooling system to fail, are something to fear. The nuclear material gets hot enough to melt the ground beneath it, causing the stuff to melt into the earth and spread through aquifers.

[inaluct]

Meh, cold fusion is a myth. It never happened, the experiment that made it famous, was not actually cold fusion.

And those nubs at the University of Utah tried to sue over people saying that, rite? LAL

[Mr Tk]

It guess it all depends on the quantity and energy potential of the reactive material you are using.

Also you can have 'hot' fusion.

[Ampersand]

Geothermal is more exciting if you ask me.

http://gizmodo.com/5291538/romulan-planet-drill-now-in-testing-stages-for-real

[ein]

Meh, cold fusion is a myth. It never happened, the experiment that made it famous, was not actually cold fusion.

I know cold fusion never happened.
What I'm saying is we need to find out how to make it happen.
It doesn't even have to be that cold.
It would still be fine if it was as hot as the surface of the sun.
Tungsten can withstand those temperatures.
It's just that normally, it would be as hot as the core of the sun.

[Cthulhu]

Who cares how hot it is?  You're not gonna be standing in it, are you?

[Strife26]

Not much for me to say really, other than my normal, bland assurances that nuke and geothermal technologies are our future. 'Our' in this case refers to the world that isn't stupid.

[ein]

Who cares how hot it is?  You're not gonna be standing in it, are you?

If it's really hot, there won't be a way to contain it.
If that happens, it will cause some pretty massive damage.
Look at Chernobyl.
Not to mention how much more powerful fusion is than fission.

[Aqizzar]

You obviously have no idea how a fusion reactor works.

I don't really either, but let me sum up the answer to your concern.  The reaction can only be sustained as long as the fusing element is still contained.  You're talking about it like if the engineers forget to carry a 1, they'll flip the switch and suddenly a new sun will start forming in a self-fueling reaction.  That's about as likely with any kind of reactor as was likely for CERN to consume the Earth in a black hole, or for the original atomic bombs to burn the atmosphere away.

Trust me, Earth destroying science is harder than it sounds.  Even Chernobyl isn't as bad as it's reputation.