New technology?

I know they’ve been talking about “new nuclear technology” that it’s safe etc… and that all US power plants are more then 20-30 years old… does anyone know what kind of other benefits there are othen then just safer nuclear energy?

There are really two different nuclear technologies about. The one that is in use around the world is nuclear fission. This involves breaking up the larger elements (here uranium) into smaller ones releasing energy. Some problems with this include the risk of meltdown and radioactive waste.

The other type is nuclear fusion (the type used in H-bombs and the sun – you take hydrogen and force them to combine creating larger elements such as helium). It is still very much in the experimental stage but will hopefully be feasible one day. It leaves no waste and meltdown is not a possibility. Also it would produce phenomenal amounts of power. Much more than our current systems can produce, there would be no power shortages at all whilst being almost completely clean!

Wish they’d hurry up with the fusion idea. Sounds like it will be extremely beneficial in the long run.

The thing that seems to be holding it up the most is politics. Everyone was arguing about where to have the new experimental plant seeing as it was an international project. Last year they finally decided to build it in France. It will take 10 years to build and will be in operation for 20 years at a cost of $12.1 dollars – that makes it the second most expensive scientific project after the International Space Station!

It should hopefully be up and running in 2016 and is a huge step in the right direction. It should show we can scale it up to a full size reactor.

Is it that complex that it will take 10 years to build? See that’s the problem with ideas like that. By the time it gets finished, we may not need it. We may have found other resources to take the place of fusion. It may become a thing of the past before it becomes commonplace.

Even if we find other resources they will be finite. It’s a very experimental plant, ongoing reseach has to be done while it’s being built. And think about how long current renewable sources have been in development. Well over ten years. It is very important that we also think about long term energy solutions as well as short term ones. A working fusion plant will produce virtually zero of the harmful emissions we currently produce. There are no long term radioactive isotopes produced and no risk of a catastrophic meltdown. And unlike solar or wind it is done in a small space without massively disrupting the landscape and habitats. A working plant that actually produces commercial electricity is expected in about thirty years.

The chances of us not needing it are remote. Energy consumption is rising and rising while conventional reserves are dropping. Any new emerging technology would still be needed to be researched, tested and implemented so whatever it was you would be looking at a long time scale.

That means that we could never have a bloke like Homer Simposn to worry about if he worked at this plant. No meltdowns means he couldn’t screw things up.

I guess that this plant would also create hundreds if not thousands of much needed jobs. However, unlike wind turbines, this plant may be an eyesore.

I remember the “ladies” as they were called(correct me if I’m wrong), at the Lakeview Generating station. They may have been a landmark, but to some people they were an eyesore, and once they were demolished, the lakeshore looked the way it should. Untouched and free of smog and smoke.

I guess it’s similar with the Darlington Plant. That plant is huge, and it’s an eyesore to anyone who sees it from the 401 or on the Lakeshore East Go line. I’ve been past it a few times and don’t like seeing it there.

What I like seeing is the wind turbine downtown, and recently I’ve seen one out in the Pickering area. Unless you know where to look, that one is hard to spot. It’s in the middle of nowhere.

Just my thoughts.

Windrams are considered eyesores by most as they cover a vast amount of land. A plant would be much much smaller. A single wind turbine doesn’t produce enough energy, granted one can look nice, but miles and miles being covered by hundreds of them?

Plants being ugly are another issues, nowadays a lot are designed and built with the impact on the landscape taken into account. And I think it would be worth one or two monstrosities if it can deliver what it promises.

It they’ve got great architechtual designers then maybe it would look nice to those who see it. I mean lets just say you got a job there. Would you want to work in a place that looked nice, or a place that looked like a box or something hideous?

Obviously if you had the choice somewhere nice. But if it had to be ugly it’s still better than a lot of the alternatives.

At the moment it’s mostly creating jobs among physicists. It’s one of the few areas of science where really cutting edge physics is being used for a practical purpose straight away. Research into uncharted areas are being done for this project, into areas we don’t pretend to understand theoretically. Most of it is concerning burning plasmas and how we can make materials to be used in the plant. It’s nice to see this kind of research being done not just for the sake of learning.

Yep. Something that will benefit the future generations is key. That’s for sure.

Look up a device called the Farnsworth Fusor, it uses inertial electrostatic confinement to (hopefully) induce deuterium-deuterium fusion. The device was invented decades ago, and research has shown it can self-sustain for several minutes… all at a much lower cost than thermal (laser) or magnetic (tokamak, etc) style setup.

I don’t see fusion as being a really viable option for our planet, but it has tremendous potential for powering spacecraft and space colonies (in space, not on planets/moons)

Why do you not see fusion as viable for our planet?

From what I learnt about the Farnsowrth Fusor at Uni I thought that it wasn’t feasible for mass energy production (limits to net energy production) and it was only really used as a neutron source.

I’m sure fusion would work, but I’m working with the belief that a distributed power system is better in most regards. It’s cheaper to build, since it’s multiple small units instead of just a few large expensive ones, it’s more reliable since there’s no single source to be disrupted, it’s much more immune to damage from weather/sabotage/terrorism than a single facility would be… and there’s just no way a solar panel can go BOOM.

I can see fusion being used as a power source for say, a large factory that requires significantly more power than can be reasonably derived from solar or wind, submarines or spacecraft, but the best option for land-based applications IMHO is a distributed generation system comprised of integrated solar, offshore wind, tidal where applicable, geothermal, maybe some OTEC..

As far as the Fusor goes, the original design by Farnsworth himself wasn’t the best for fusion. Later designs based on that were more successful at fusing atoms, but I don’t know if those system retained the Fusor name or were called something else. Scott Little at EarthTech did some experiements on fusor-based designs back in the 1990s and seemed to have some successes if I recall correctly.