Fusion Politics

gom

Related Article: France selected for site of first ever Fusion Reactor

After a long period of deadlock France is to be the site for the worlds first Fusion Reactor of the scale necessary to produce power. If all goes well this will mean the legacy Nuclear Fission reactors which have huge safety issues and massive negative externalities in the form of Nuclear Waste/Radioactive Isotopes can be decommissioned and replaced with Nuclear Fusion reactors.
Nuclear Fusion reactors have a small amount of radioactive waste but the waste decays much faster than the waste from present nuclear reactors.
Nuclear Fusion can be powered by Sea water ?!? Instead of Enriched Uranium.

My questions are in two parts.

1. What are the implications for Nuclear Proliferation?
I believe that if Nuclear Fusion as a power source is developed quickly the IAEI treaties can be renegociated to ban all exchange of technology and information relating to Nuclear Fission. There by making the claim that Uranium is needed in Iran for the peaceful development of Nuclear power defunct. Nuclear Fusion should be promoted and Nuclear Fission limited/banned(in terms of proliferation).

2. Should Ireland develop a Civilian-Nuclear Industry?
I believe that it is long over due. In order to meet commitments to the Kyoto protocol Ireland requires renewable and Nuclear energy combined. Oil is still the primary source of industrial and electric power source. By replacing our oil/gas/peat power stations with Nuclear (Fission but preferibly Fussion) we can possibly minimise the effects of 'Peak-Oil' on the Irish economy. 'Peak-Oil' is expected to occur in 2008. From then on global supply of Oil will reduce year-on-year.
Why can't Ireland have a Nuclear power industry? I'm a supporter of CND and belief that more should be done to reduce the threat of World destruction.

Wibbs

True fusion is a great plan but in it's present form as a source of power to relace fossil fuels, it's quite a ways off(as the article says). The energies put in are vast and AFAIK the returns have been very small. I agree with you though that some (cleaner)nuclear power is needed soon as other sustainable energy sources(wind, solar etc) have limited application.

Answering your questions; yes I think you're right it would reduce questionable uses for nuclear fisson. Then again it may turn out that nuclear fusion may need a small fission reactor as a "starting motor" for the huge energies needed to start and stabilise the process(as far as I remember even the fusion bomb needs a fission bomb as the trigger). So we may be back to square one.

Yes, I think we do need an Irish nuclear power plan as the pollution and the attendant problems with fossil fuels are fast catching up with us. If there was a concerted effort by the world to make it safer(even nuclear fission) it would benefit the planet in a big way. I seem to remember that Lovelock(the Gaia principle bloke) seems to see this as a way forward.

Xterminator

Nuclear fusion is still not a viable source.

How can you make plans for the near future, based on what you hope will happen?

We need to make a comprehensive effort to reduce future demand, while planning for our needs.

New houses should have solar panels for heating water, and have the highest standard of insulation to minimise heating costs etc.

Personally i think we should have a lot more renewable engery projects coming on stream.especially offshore windfarms. etc. (Anyone who has used mains electricty in say the last 30 years could be precluded from objecting, as the not in my backyard attitude that holds projects up in ths county is ridiculous.

Also cars need to be burning something reknewable like ethanol derived from sugar beet etc. Roll out the infrstructure, use the unwanted sugar crop, and then exempt cars buring ethanol from vrt!

X

Wibbs

Ethanol as a fuel is all very dandy but have you ever stood behind a car burning it? Burns the eyes out of you so as a large scale enterprise it leaves a lot to be desired.

How many wind farms do you think we would need to replace the existing sources of power? Anyway the damn things are ugly as sin and are for me a major blot on the landscape.

dudara

Fusion is an ideal power source, but at the moment, research is only approaching the break-even point. ie getting as much energy out of the reaction as they put in. If it's going to be a viable power source, then we have to find ways past the break-even point. The physics of containing the plasma and so on are fairly intricate.

As to the politics of the whole thing, I think this country is incredibly behind the times in looking at alternative fuel sources, but then, so is most of the world. We live on an island gusted by winds and battered by waves, but where are the wind farms and tidal farms. People don't want them.

I know one person with a hybrid car. It makes so much sense, yet where are the incentives to massively promote these cars

murphaph

I'm glad something is being done wrt. fusion anyways. So it'll take 35 yrs before the thing generates electricity. What's the alternative? Sit and moan about it? It's not entirely proven but I dare say there's some confidence in it or 5 billion wouldn't be about to be invested in it.

It's a wonderful thought-limitless power with almost no emissions. If it comes off then hopefully in another few hundred years the damage done by industrialisation will be able to be reversed. How cool would that be.

bonkey

gom wrote:

1. What are the implications for Nuclear Proliferation?
I believe that if Nuclear Fusion as a power source is developed quickly the IAEI treaties can be renegociated to ban all exchange of technology and information relating to Nuclear Fission. There by making the claim that Uranium is needed in Iran for the peaceful development of Nuclear power defunct. Nuclear Fusion should be promoted and Nuclear Fission limited/banned(in terms of proliferation).

Excellent suggestion. Unfortunately, I reckon its as likely as getting the existing nuclear nations to agree to dismantle their nuclear arsenals.

2. Should Ireland develop a Civilian-Nuclear Industry?
I believe that it is long over due. In order to meet commitments to the Kyoto protocol Ireland requires renewable and Nuclear energy combined. Oil is still the primary source of industrial and electric power source. By replacing our oil/gas/peat power stations with Nuclear (Fission but preferibly Fussion) we can possibly minimise the effects of 'Peak-Oil' on the Irish economy. 'Peak-Oil' is expected to occur in 2008. From then on global supply of Oil will reduce year-on-year.
Why can't Ireland have a Nuclear power industry? I'm a supporter of CND and belief that more should be done to reduce the threat of World destruction.

I'm not so convinced on this one. Firstly, even if we initiated a nuclear industry today, I very much doubt we'd have a resultant decrease in emissions in the Kyoto timeframe, so I'm not sure that the meeting of those targets should be seen as a reason in and of itself. The general principle of reducing emissions and our reliance on oil are far stonger arguments.

As far as I'm aware, Peak-Oil is a very contested concept in that the real impacts and timescales are far from certain. However, a crunch is coming, and there's no excuse for sitting around waiting for it to come before we do anything.

The question is whether or not nuclear is the answer.

Modern designs for new plants are far safer, more efficient and cleaner than existing nuclear plants are, which is a major plus. On the negative side, there is the reality that nuclear fuel is not limitless in a ready supply. We can extract it from sea-water, but this isn't - that I'm aware of - an established large-scale industry anywhere.

I'm also somewhat suspicious that a proliferation of nuclear stations around the world, should the next-generation reactors gain widespread acceptance, would have some unforseen political ramifications. For a start, the production and more-widespread distribution of fissile material is just asking to cause more than one political bout of argy-bargy.

To me, the future availability of nuclear as a power source is definitely very interesting. However, I just don't think the infrastructure is quite there yet to support a large-scale conversion to nuclear. After all...if we're being smart in doing this (as supporters would generally argue), then its reasonable to assume that more and more nations will make the same smart decision over time....and that raises all those questions regarding fuel-supply.

Maybe they've been answered already, and someone can point me at the information, but to me, nuclear generation is currently a political minefield waiting for nations to cross it.

Ireland has neither the wealth to burn nor the international political clout that it would take to make it seem like a particularly good idea to be an early-adopter. I would rather see the money pushed into energy-usage reduction strategies.

Someone put a link up in some thread before about how the cost of a new station in the US (granted...US...not necessarily directly applicable to Ireland), if applied into re-fitting existing domestic homes to be more energy-efficient, would save more energy than the new station would have generated. Add in the cost of a nuclear development program on top of building a station, and all of a sudden, its maybe not the best use of our cash in terms of managing our energy demands.

I'm open to being convinced...but I just don't think nuclear is ready for Ireland...whatever about us being ready for it.

jc

mike65

Slightly dissapointed, I though t this thread would be about sending postcards to Chirac demanding it be closed down!

Fusion (remeber the "cold fusion" farce 15 years ago?) is certainly worth pursuing for its potential and what might be discovered along the way.

I don't see much point of Ireland taking the nuclear route (never thought I'd say that!) as the country can get its energy from other sources (wind,thermal, solar, tidal, carbon crops) not to mention SAVING ENERGY, if only we got on with it.

For any thoughts on energy policy theres a thread or two on the Green Issues forum about this.

Mike.

CaptainPeacock

Wibbs wrote:

How many wind farms do you think we would need to replace the existing sources of power?

Who said anything about wind replacing every other existing source of power?

Anyway the damn things are ugly as sin and are for me a major blot on the landscape.

You often go for a stroll out in the Atlantic, do you?

netwhizkid

Will CERN be involved in this ? They already have antimatter a seemingly unending supply of energy. If you read Dan Browns angels and demons This awseome power is fast becoming a reality.

Regards netwhizkid

oscarBravo

netwhizkid wrote:

Will CERN be involved in this ? They already have antimatter a seemingly unending supply of energy.

CERN wrote:

There is no possibility to use antimatter as energy "source".

netwhizkid wrote:

If you read Dan Browns angels and demons This awseome power is fast becoming a reality.

If you read the page you linked you'd know it's not.

Wibbs

CaptainPeacock wrote:

Who said anything about wind replacing every other existing source of power?

Ok fair point, but how many solar, tidal, wind, etc. plants would be required to replace our current(albeit wastful) energy needs, much less our future ones?

You often go for a stroll out in the Atlantic, do you?

No, sadly the messiah complex doesn't reach as far as walking on water just yet, but it doesn't look like I'd currently have to.
http://www.irish-energy.ie/content/content.asp?section_id=1035

BTW nobody has mentioned hydroelectric. Has it fallen from favour? I know the issues with the landscape(being a fishing type), but I was just wondering.

is_that_so

mike65 wrote:

I don't see much point of Ireland taking the nuclear route (never thought I'd say that!) as the country can get its energy from other sources (wind,thermal, solar, tidal, carbon crops) not to mention SAVING ENERGY, if only we got on with it.



Mike.

A fusion reactor is also ferociously expensive as well(€10 billion for ITER). The alternatives need to overcome that NIMBY complex and RUJDS (Ring Up Joe Duffy Syndrome) as well. Personally I am a big fan of those windmills.

is_that_so

Wibbs wrote:

BTW nobody has mentioned hydroelectric. Has it fallen from favour? I know the issues with the landscape(being a fishing type), but I was just wondering.

We're a bit short of big hills :rolleyes:

rsynnott

For the moment, nuclear fission is the only practical general-purpose clean energy source. This will probably be the case for some time.

Wind and solar aren't constant sources. Tidal is expensive and breaks down, and is environmentally disruptive. Hydroelectric needs expensive maintainance, is fussy about geography and is very environmentally disruptive.

Nuclear fusion will take time to develop, even assuming that this newest attempt is successful (Britain claimed it was just round the corner in the 60s, remember). And it remains a proliferation hazard, to a degree; any fusion reaction we're likely to see produces a lot of neutrons, which can be used to convert U-238 into plutonium, as in current fast breeder reactors.

And no, despite what Star Trek tells you, antimatter is certainly not a viable power source at this time; the only way we have of making antimatter requires FAR more energy than would actually be returned from the matter-antimatter reaction (there is apparently a form of anti-matter catalysed fusion which might be getting towards usable). And of course, any significant amount of antimatter is a HUGE proliferation hazard.