Nuclear Fusion: The Clean Power That Will Take Decades To Master

[Webster]

(Digg) Nuclear Fusion: The Clean Power That Will Take Decades To Master

Nuclear fusion is what powers the Sun and the stars — unleashing huge amounts of energy through the binding together of light elements such as hydrogen and helium. If fusion power were harnessed directly on Earth, it could produce inexhaustible clean power, using seawater as the main fuel, with no greenhouse gas emissions, no proliferation risk, and no risk of catastrophic accidents.

Radioactive waste is very low level and indirect, arising from neutron activation of the power plant core. With current technology, a fusion power plant could be completely recycled within 100 years of shutdown.

Today’s nuclear power plants exploit nuclear fission — the splitting of atomic nuclei of heavy elements such as uranium, thorium, and plutonium into lighter “daughter” nuclei. This process, which happens spontaneously in unstable elements, can be harnessed to generate electricity, but it also generates long-lived radioactive waste.

Why aren’t we using safe, clean nuclear fusion power yet? Despite significant progress in fusion research, why do we physicists treat unfounded claims of “breakthroughs” with scepticism? The short answer is that is it very difficult to achieve the conditions that sustain the reaction. But if the experiments under construction now are successful, we can be optimistic that nuclear fusion power can be a reality within a generation.

-Read more: http://digg.com/2015/nuclear-fusion-the-clean-power-that-will-take-decades-to-master

Thoughts?

 

[DrLeftover]

To call "fusion" clean is simply a lie.

Radiation IS released, the equipment used in and around the reactor become radioactive, as is the eventual product of the fusion of lighter atoms, and in the mean time, overheating of the reactor and a possible very serious 'oh shoot' moment IS on the table.

So while it is a source or energy, and there are no dead fuel rods that have to be dealt with short term, it isn't all lollipops and roses.

 

[Webster]

To call "fusion" clean is simply a lie.

*scratches head in thought* I think what they meant by "clean" was in regards to greatly reduced carbon emissions, not in terms of radiation....

 

[DrLeftover]

Pardon me, sir, I believe this is a direct quote from the OP:

it could produce inexhaustible clean power, using seawater as the main fuel, with no greenhouse gas emissions, no proliferation risk, and no risk of catastrophic accidents.

???

I freely and willingly admit an accident with a fusion reactor will probably be less entertaining than Chernobyl, but to say there is "No Risk" is overstating the matter.

Think about it, what can go wrong?

The Iter tokamak machine, which is twice the linear size and 10 times the volume of its nearest rival at Culham, will produce temperatures of well over 100 million C – many times hotter than the centre of the Sun.

It is the first experimental fusion reactor to receive a nuclear operating licence because of its power-generating capacity. For every 50 megawatts of electricity it uses, it should generate up to 500mw of power output in the form of heat.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...and-an-age-of-clean-cheap-energy-8590480.html


Do you want to be working next door when they have their "oh shit" moment?