Tech | August 25, 2011 | 29 comments

Where is Fusion power?

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/23/fusion-power-is-it-getting-closer

Image
pdy
  • pdy
  • added this
A star is born. And, less than a second later, it dies. On a drab science park just outside the Oxfordshire village of Culham, some of the world's leading physicists stare at a monitor to review a video of their wondrous, yet fleeting, creation.

"Not too bad. That was quite a clean one," observes starmaker-in-chief Professor Steve Cowley. Just a few metres away from his control room, a "mini star" not much larger than a family car has just burned, momentarily bright, at temperatures approaching 23 million degrees centigrade inside a 70-tonne steel vessel.

Cowley sips his coffee. "OK, when do we go again?"

Last year, when asked to name the most pressing scientific challenge facing humanity, Professors Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox both gave the same answer: producing electricity from fusion energy. The prize, they said, is enormous: a near-limitless, pollution-free, cheap source of energy that would power human development for many centuries to come. Cox is so passionate about the urgent need for fusion power that he stated that it should be scientists such as Cowley who are revered in our culture – not footballers or pop stars – because they are "literally going to save the world". It is a "moral duty" to commercialise this technology as fast as possible, he said. Without it, our species will be in "very deep trouble indeed" by the end of this century.

Read the full article at the link
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Tech,   Green,   14 more
  2. tags:
    Science,  Energy,  Renewable Energy,  Clean Energy,  7 more
  3.     
    |

29 comments // Where is Fusion power?

  • stealthpanda
    • +3
      stealthpanda  

    • A better idea would be to harness the giant fusion reactor we already have working for us.... the sun.

      If we could figure out an efficient and cost effective way of collecting the suns energy we wouldnt need to build miny stars on earth.

    • 9 months ago
  • squarethecircle
  • CalPal
    • 0
      CalPal  
    • stealthpanda:

      The only thing, though, is that if fusion works, it will quickly make solar panels obsolete, since fusion reactors can provide consistent energy 24/7, whereas the other one is limited by the amount of sunlight it receives.

      Both are great, don't get me wrong, but ultimately one is much more superior to the other in terms of providing energy. Solar panels should act as a stepping stone to fusion, I think.

    • 9 months ago
  • WNYmathGuy
  • WagonMaster
    • +1
      WagonMaster  

    • One must first find the what of it and than look for the where for of it. A starting place would be the who of it and the why of the essential it, of it.

    • 9 months ago
  • remanns
  • NiceN
    • 0
      NiceN  

    • Where is it you say? It is inside the vaults of the American government and big oil corporations, so that they can profit and enslave the world over with money and dirty means of producing energy.

    • 9 months ago
  • GRC54
    • 0
      GRC54  

    • Coal companies will find a way to bury it. They will loose money if they get a working fusion reactor.
      I say build them when it's perfected and bury the coal companies. Their so called Clean Coal isn't clean. it's the same old pollution shit they have been burning since the 1800's

    • 9 months ago
  • nnuddin
  • Snails
    • 0
      Snails  

    • It's awesome, but as we all know with fission energy, its all good until mother earth decides to move some furniture around. So I still have big concerns about building mini stars contained by earthly vessels, I mean, what could go wrong???!

      OOO, this could be a good plot for a nick cage movie...
      "I was there, at my office, deeply contemplating things in my head, because i'm not that great of an actor, and i depend on asides to progress a story, then, like all the worst parts of the bible at once, the world was blown into two parts..."

    • 9 months ago
  • Jake_Leonard
    • +2
      Jake_Leonard  
    • Snails:

      It's not fission energy, it's fusion :-). Fusion is much more stable and in fact gives off little radiation. There are no meltdowns (run-away reactions) with a fusion reaction. If the fusion reaction expands in size, it simply burns itself out when artificially created. Stable fusion would most certainly make present nuclear fission reactors obsolete.

      This is not Spiderman 2.

    • 9 months ago
  • Snails
    • 0
      Snails  
    • Jake_Leonard:

      I understand the difference between fusion and fission. I didn't know nick cage was in spiderman 2?? That guys in everything!

      And honestly, i don't know how safe they are, but, my point is on principle, i would have a hard time believing there is no serious risk involved.

      The nick cage shit is a joke also, if you didn't catch that.(Aside: Frickin' literal type A people, jeesh, its like im arguing with my older sister! lol)

    • 9 months ago
  • Jake_Leonard
    • +1
      Jake_Leonard  
    • Snails:

      Yeah, sorry, I am certainly a Type-A individual... :-)

      My reply to you was less for you and more for people who believe in sensational nonsense or would take that as completely literal. Fear spreads, and there are plenty of nuclear physicists (not to mention numerous websites) capable of explaining every step and every little risk. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is FAR safer than fission—and that's a fact.

      My apologies for underestimating your understanding, I misinterpreted your first sentence. Still, comparing fission to fusion is difficult to reason on.

      I'm aware your reference to Nicholas Cage was not directed toward Spider-man 2 and was largely a joke. I was merely referencing the sensational fear brought upon nuclear fusion in the aftermath of the plotline in Spider-man 2. My apologies if you took offense.

    • 9 months ago
  • WagonMaster
  • squarethecircle
    • 0
      squarethecircle  
    • Snails:

      Fusion and fission are both more than we need, and though one appears safer than the other, what we don't know can kill us. We need to better understand these principles before rushing headlong into being overwhelmed. We have plenty of that going around.

    • 9 months ago
  • Snails
    • 0
      Snails  
    • Jake_Leonard:

      No, offense taken bud, once i reread my original statement i understood that it wasn't exactly clear. I really don't remember the plot from SM2. I dislike fear mongering, and that is certainly not my intent, just expressing a genuine, relevant fear, that i think many people would rightly have. I would agree with square the circle that we rally don't need this tech anyway, though i guess if it's basically safe, then no harm no foul, I just have mixed feeling about the subject and don't have enough knowledge to really have a solid opinion, so I make nick cage jokes lol. :)

    • 9 months ago
  • Jake_Leonard
    • +1
      Jake_Leonard  

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GooNhOIMY0

      Types of civilization.

      We are on the brink of obtaining type 1 status. Fusion power may be our transitioning phase, but ultimately, harnessing the power of the winds, geo-thermal, and solar-energy for example seem to be not necessarily the most powerful, but the most sustainable sources.

      I sometimes wonder if there is any possibility in harnessing energy from the magnetic fields of the Earth. From what I've read at this juncture, no. But you never know.

    • 9 months ago
  • squarethecircle
  • remanns
    • +2
      remanns  
    • squarethecircle:

      Well,....it has to be financially feasible to build these things competitive to other means, to replace the power sources we rely on now.
      ( As pure science, something to try ONCE,....well,...different cultural equation ; we probably should,....if we can. Beats the hell out of the application that goes 'BOOM" ! )

    • 9 months ago
  • squarethecircle
    • +1
      squarethecircle  
    • remanns:

      so what if we create this ultimate power source? Can't the investment in humanity be enough? It would use a small portion of our resources to end the struggle for power globally. There are so many ways to use our minds and efforts that are limited by tying everything to a monetary value. Life is priceless and money is a false, imposed concept.

    • 9 months ago
  • WagonMaster
  • squarethecircle
    • 0
      squarethecircle  
    • WagonMaster:

      maybe they should go to mars as this planet is inhabited by organic, creative, spiritual organisms that want more for each other than this unconscionable, mundane slavery of an existence that we can step out of anytime we choose to as a connected, conscious humanity.

    • 9 months ago
  • remanns
    • +2
      remanns  

    • "Featured" at "Culture".

      Crucial FACTOR -
      [ "We could produce net electricity right now, but the costs would be huge," says Cowley. "The barrier is finding a material than can withstand the neutron bombardment inside the tokamak. We could also just say damn to the cost of the electricity required to demonstrate this. But we don't want to do something that cannot be shown to be commercially viable. What's the point?" ]

    • 9 months ago
  • Vic_Romano
  • remanns
  • remanns
  • remanns
  • Vic_Romano
  • remanns
    • +1
      remanns  
    • Vic_Romano:

      Apollo might give it as a gift,.....( but probably just loan it,.....him n Helios are that way,.....but good ol PROMETHEUS would just steal the secret outright and give it to us, his chums,.....I would prefer THAT ! )

      p.s. +^d

    • 9 months ago
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos