Indeed, However plasma physics is by itself interesting, so it is nice to have some big science experiments running. Science is not about profit but having fun!
If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn profits on a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion. It is nicer, because it does not produce a neutron flux, but it emits fast protons. This means in practice that protons can be captured with magnets and their kinetic energy can be transformed directly into electricity with high efficiency (over 70%). This would negate at least your arguments (1) and (2) that are devastating for the deuterium based plasma fusion to have any economical prospects. However argument (3) is still valid and it hard to see how even he-3 plasma fusion could compete economically with solar electricity, wind power and 4th gen nuclear. China is already building quite promisingly cheap 4th gen helium cooled nuclear plant at Rongcheng. —Jouni Sent from my iPad On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > This type of hot fusion has three problems that have not been solved or even > widely acknowledged. > > 1. The fusion is between D+T. The tritium must be created because it is not a > natural isotope. The plan is to convert the neutron flux into tritium which > is fed back into the reactor. Unfortunately, this conversion process is not > 100% efficient because many neutrons are lost without making tritium. This > missing tritium must be made using a fission reactor or accelerator, with the > added expense this gives. > > 2. The first wall is exposed to an intense flux of radiation. As a result, > its integrity is gradually compromised. Replacement is a major problem and > requires shutting down the reactor for an extended time. During this time, > the missing power must be supplied by expensive backup generators, thereby > increasing the average cost of power. > > 3. The system is very complex and as a result has many failure modes, most of > which have not been identified. These will only be identified after the money > has been spent and the machine is put into service. Consequently, more money > will be required, but at this stage too much will have been invested to > abandon the method, which seems to be the case even now. > > The comment below is exactly correct. This program is a waste of money and > will never produce commercial power. The method was given its chance to > prove its worth and it has failed. Yet it goes on. In contrast, cold fusion > was never given a chance to prove its worth. > > Ed Storms >
