On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:29 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
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!
Well Jouni, when over 25 billion dollars are spent, the question is
who has the fun from this money. As a tax payer, I could have had
much more fun if the money had been sent on something that lowered my
energy bill and reduced the risk of global warming . But to each his
own.
If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn
profits on a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion.
Yes, and where do you get the He3? Yes, this is present on the Moon,
but at what cost?
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.
I agree. However, why not suggest just a little of this money be used
to explore cold fusion?
China is already building quite promisingly cheap 4th gen helium
cooled nuclear plant at Rongcheng.
Yes, China is on the front of many technologies now because the West
is captured by various self-interests that have no relationship to
general benefit.
Ed
—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
