Nuclear Power

[Nickster]

With the announcement recently of the new Iter project the green lobby seems to have come out against clean nuclear fusion power on the basis that the money should be spent on improving existing clean technologies. I'm trying to get my head around why they think this. Could the human race in 100 years time (if we're still around then!) with much higher energy demands survive on energy 100% derived from wind/wave/solar power. What about areas where these natural resources are scarce? IMHO a potentially unlimited supply of renewable clean energy IS worth investing billions in. I think there are some environmentalists out there who are too quick to lump nulcear fusion with existing fission energy reactors, and jump to kneejerk conclusions about anything with the word "nuclear" in it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I dunno about kneejerk, in my case scepticism about fusion is focussed on whether it's ever going to produce more energy than it consumes, which is kind of the point if it's supposed to provide the world with (comparatively) clean and limitless electrical power.

That's a view with a certain amount of science and engineering behind it.

In fact we had a discussion about this in this very forum about a year ago.

Similar objections apply to the notion of breeder reactors as being good for anything but nuclear weapons proliferation. The theory sounds fine, but there are some very serious engineering difficulties in the way of getting either theory to turn into something useful for producing power on a mass scale.

There may be some 'kneejerk' environmentalists around, but most of the ones I know prefer to base their arguments on the science.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So, following on from that, I think there is an entirely reasonable argument that says, particularly if we're trying to stabilise emissions at 400ppm CO2e or anything like it, that we need to invest heavily in something that works *now* and that doesn't have the huge imponderables of fusion. By all means keep investing in fusion too, but we don't have time to bugger about waiting, so the investment priority has to be in demand reduction and low carbon technologies that are more or less sorted out already and just need scaling up, rather than stuff that needs a lot of science fiction to happen before its any use.

 

[Nickster]

So, following on from that, I think there is an entirely reasonable argument that says, particularly if we're trying to stabilise emissions at 400ppm CO2e or anything like it, that we need to invest heavily in something that works *now* and that doesn't have the huge imponderables of fusion. By all means keep investing in fusion too, but we don't have time to bugger about waiting, so the investment priority has to be in demand reduction and low carbon technologies that are more or less sorted out already and just need scaling up, rather than stuff that needs a lot of science fiction to happen before its any use.

Agreed. The two objectives of improving solar/wind/wave power and investing in nuclear fusion technology are not mutually exclusive. In many ways they offer solutions to different problems: the first one being short-term reduction in carbon emissions over the next 20 years or so, the latter being to provide potentially unlimited comercailly available power by the second half of the 21st century. When existing fossil fuels run out, without fusion power solar/wind/wave will be insufficient to provide all our energy demands unless nuclear fission reactors are far more common (a worrying development seeing as the best long-term solution for containment of radwaste is just to buy it at Drigg). Investment for Iter is from additional funds provided by a coalition of nations above-and-beyond that already earmarked for improving existing clean technologies.
IMHO environmentalists should be just as positive and vocal about their support for Iter as far other clean technologies.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Or unless we take demand reduction seriously, something which nobody but environmentalists seems to be willing to do for economic reasons.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Again, the problem seems to me to be that without any real confidence that fusion is workable as a mass energy source, and without any real confidence that breeder reactors can usefully extend our supply of fission fuel, we don't actually have any options that would let us carry on increasing our energy use in the long term. Fission is limited by the purity of the available ores in terms of actually being able to produce more energy than it consumes. So like fossil fuels, it's time-limited.

Demand reduction almost certainly could be made to work within limits of the available solar flows and the methods we have for extracting energy from them. The problem is political, not technical. Ie that demand reduction and capitalism can't work together.

I'm quite happy to see work on fusion continue in case they can overcome the current limitations, but I don't think we can afford to bet the entire future of the human race on getting it sorted out.

 

[muser]

There is hope. Though I'am taking this story at face value, and the materials being used are the same as those used in tokomaks and ITERs, the results have been confirmed by independent scientist.

The device is planned to eventually create a plasma lasting 1,000
consecutive seconds, the longest a fusion reactor has ever run.


Wan said the deuterium extracted from one liter of seawater could
produce energy equivalent to that generated by burning 300 liters of
gasoline thanks to the fusion technology.


If the thermonuclear fusion technology is commercialized, it may
provide energy to mankind for more than 100 million years, Wan said.

source

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yeah, then again if you look back at the dawn of nuclear power it was supposed to get so cheap that they'd stop charging for it in units and just charge a flat fee (broadband for power?).

That didn't work now did it. Scientists shouldn't be allowed to make statements to/near the press without first consulting with an engineer.

 

[Crispy]

Good news everyone!

Greenpeace have won their high court case against the government's energy review, which strongly backed nuclear without any real analysis of lifetime costs etc.