=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Mr Grufty Jim Sir !!
Log In to post a reply
39 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

response part 1 (fusion)
Dec 13, 2001, 15:41
> Thanks for that Jim, I'm glad I wasn't barking up
> the wrong tree or going orgone accumulator on
> your arse!
>
heh heh... i have to admit when i heard the term "Z Machine" i was unjustifiably sceptical. but in my defence, it *is* a very Star Trek name.

plus, there are some very weird ideas out there for new energy sources. that's not to say that they are all necessarily junk... i mean, how weird is nuclear fusion? (get two atoms of deuterium, fuse them together in a magnetically sealed ring of super-hot plasma, and pop! two atoms become one and loads of energy gets released... very strange indeed - but as i say, perfectly possible - that is, after all, how the sun works).

>
> 1. How safe AND clean is nuclear fusion?
>
an excellent site to find out more about fusion is http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/ (though one needs to be aware that much of the material here is produced by people who are trying to bolster dwindling research grants).

the related issues of safety and environmental impact are naturally a concern whenever the word "nuclear" gets used. thankfully, let me put your mind at rest, and point out that nuclear fusion is a _very_ different kettle of fish to nuclear fission (our current nuclear technology).

on the safety issue. a nuclear fusion reactor is essentially a massive, ongoing, contained explosion. truly massive. i personally would not wish to live next door to one of the things. if a terrorist crashed an airliner into a fusion plant, or if a catastrophic failure occurred in the magnetic containment field, then the resulting explosion would probably not something you want to be within a couple of miles of. for the same reasons, i would choose not to live next door to an oil refinery or an explosives factory.

fusion plants could be made very safe indeed, but never 100% safe.

more importantly though, is the issue of how clean fusion is. would such an explosion be another chernobyl? and what about waste disposal? and nuclear proliferation?

thankfully, here the story is much better. there are a whole host of different nuclear fusion reactions. the vast majority of them produce zero (yup, that's right, zero) radioactive byproducts. however, the one that we are closest to achieving is the deuterium - tritium (D - T) fusion reaction. this does not have a zero radiation output.

however, the D-T reaction produces tiny (truly, very small) quantities of radioactive tritium. these are absorbed by a lithium shield within the reaction chamber (both lithium and deterium are extremely plentiful in sea water... so fuel supply is not an issue really). most importantly (and pleasantly) however is the fact that tritium, unlike plutonium or uranium has a radioactive half-life of just over 12 years.

so yes, the most likely version of fusion that we would develop would have a small quantity of "hot" waste. but it's nothing like the long term problem of fission reactors. i am confident that the safe storage of slightly radioactive material is possible for periods of a decade or two.

also, in reality, if D-T fusion ever became a reality, then it would almost certainly be a step on the road towards a more advanced tritium-free form of fusion. certainly there are concerns; but i think most people would agree that for cheap, abundant, renewable energy the potential risks are more than worth it.
In reply to:
Re: Z Accelerator (morfe)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index