There's loads of deuterium in the ocean, it just needs power to get it out, which there'll be. Tritium is tougher, you need it to start the fusion, but a lot of fusion designs seem to be setup to then effectively start being self sufficient in creating tritium.
Elusive fusion reactors to be commercialised by 2025-2030... Or so they say
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
There's loads of deuterium in the ocean, it just needs power to get it out, which there'll be. Tritium is tougher, you need it to start the fusion, but a lot of fusion designs seem to be setup to then effectively start being self sufficient in creating tritium.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 2,067
- Location
- Nottingham
funny reading the comments about no chance of a meltdown, im sure when fision was brand new they said the same thing and here we are after what 3/4 meltdowns now 
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 6,592
not including accidents and the like.funny reading the comments about no chance of a meltdown, im sure when fision was brand new they saiod the same thing and here we are after what 3/4 meltdowns now
over a period of 70years
i think i heard the phrase safer than flying.
"The first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid was the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant in the Soviet Union, which began operations in 1954. However, the first nuclear power station to produce electricity for domestic use was Calder Hall in the United Kingdom, which opened in 1956"
i remembered its not deuterium i was thinking of but Helium 3. appologies.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,120
- Location
- Burscough
Thats assuming money will solve the problem.
One of the biggest problems is to do with materials selection. Activation of components needs to be minimised, components need to be interchangeable within the blanket, components need to be able to withstand the collosal temperatures repeatedly over many years of continued operation in order to be viable. When really drill down deep into the technical issues, I think you very quickly realise the scale of the challenges are absolutely vast and nowhere near being solved.
There are a lot of smaller companies like Tokamak Energy who talk a good game and offer the moon on a stick, but the reality is, they just want to periodically make a few headlines, entice a few more hedge fund managers into their scheme following another funding round to keep the whole thing under development. But when you speak to them (as I have in my professional capacity) you soon realise that they honestly don't stand a chance.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 2,067
- Location
- Nottingham
Accept when it goes wrong it has the potential to detroy the planet. weve been extremely lucky in all of the known meltdowns.
How exactly is it going to destroy the planet? And are we talking fusion or fission?
I wonder how much real danger all that plutonium can do and whatever else dumped around the UK.
Last edited:
Including all the accidents and like, nuclear power has put much less radiation (per unit of energy generated) into the environment than fossil fuels.
Also, why are we talking about nuclear? Fusion is fundamentally different.
funny reading the comments about no chance of a meltdown, im sure when fision was brand new they said the same thing and here we are after what 3/4 meltdowns now
There us a fundamental difference.
Fission involves bringing radioactive material close enough that it starts to reach critical mass and a chain reaction starts. If care isn't taken then the chain reaction is not controlled and you have an atomic bomb. Enough fuel is present to make Chernobyl happen. The output of an uncontrolled reaction is a load of extremely nasty radioactive elements that absolutely will give millions cancer .
With Fusion, the opposite is the case and very specific and complex conditions are required to be maintained. This is why it has been so difficult to get a working Fusion reactor because it is so sensitive and everything has to be perfect. Hydrogen bombs do this in a different way with the intention that the fusion is almost instant for all material. The total amount of fusion material available at any one time is tiny, so any explosion as well as being far less likely will be far smaller. And the radio active output a lot less harmful and obviously less distributed.
Fusion is inherently safe, fission is inherently unsafe without adding all the safety measures which meads to the high cost.