From: spudboy100@aol.com (Cleatus Magoo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics.plasma
Subject: Re: Advance Claimed in Fusion Research
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
References: <aiuqmq$13h0$1@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <aj6ipf$5dfp$1@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <al7h2f$3058$1@saturn.cs.uml.edu>


Dez,

What about the safety of a gas-core reactor, versus a light-water
reactor. I am concerned that a breach in an earth-based gas-core
reactor might cause widepsread contamination. And resdigning the
reactor walls might be too costly. Also the finance for the "clean-up"
of radio-contaminated walls, colander, doo-hickeys, might also be
prohibitive.


dezakin@usa.net (Dez Akin) wrote in message news:<al7h2f$3058$1@saturn.cs.uml.edu>...
> Mike Rosing <rosing@neurophys.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<aj6ipf$5dfp$1@saturn.cs.uml.edu>...
> > sanman wrote:
> > > Here's an article from NewScientist:
> > >
> > > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992637
> > >
> > > They claim an advance in being able to sustain a plasma discharge for
> > > upto 210 secs. So is this another stunt by researchers looking to show
> > > progress in their long-unrealized goal of achieving practical fusion
> > > power? Or is it a significant and worthwhile advance?
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer. It's a good "stunt", especially if they can
> > repeat it a bunch of times. If ITER is going to run with 30 minute
> > "pulses" as they called 'em, then they are still a factor of 10 away
> > in run time. Getting that far in 3 years won't be easy, but it's "only"
> > a factor of 10. That's something the engineering team can work with,
> > so it's a worthwhile advance.
> >
>
> It sounds like a giant waste of money.
>
> Fission reactors do work and are currently economically viable, but
> are no means at the plateau of technological development. Molten salt
> reactors are doable with some research and todays technology for full
> conversion of uranium and thorium fuel into energy at 44%
> thermodynamic efficency and economically more viable than coal or
> light water reactors.
>
> Gas core fission reactors are doable with 20 odd years of R & D,
> pumping up thermodynamic efficiency into the 70% range with MHD
> conversion, and eventually electromagnetic confinement of the
> fissioning plasma for higher temperatures.
>
> It seems reasonable that we should attack fission reactors with much
> more effort than fusion reactors. The technology for fusion work will
> evolve from technology for advanced fissioning plasma core reactors.
> Fusion reactors, unless they are totally aneutronic, have just as much
> of a waste issue as fission reactors if not more, and won't be cheap
> enough to produce power competitively for over a century.
>
> We have no shortage of fissile material, we can deal with the waste
> issue today by building molten salt reactors for waste incineration.
> There's no point in pursuing fusion research before fissioning plasma
> core reactors.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The contents of this message have been scanned for viruses by
> the Clearswift ES Policy Server, and no viruses were found.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this message have been scanned for viruses by
the Clearswift ES Policy Server, and no viruses were found.