Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

knocker

Fusion reactors 'economically viable' say experts

Recommended Posts

Hasn't it always been a "few decades" away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't it always been a "few decades" away?

Yes it has. I read a Scientific American article, way back in 1983, that said the same thing. There are enough sources of renewable energy to supply all our needs, so why do we need nuclear fusion?  :cc_confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't it always been a "few decades" away?

We should`ve had it yesterday to start with at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't it always been a "few decades" away?

 

JET (here in the UK) actually produced fusion. ITER (being built in France) plans to produce fusion power for 5 years (other projects in Canada and South Korea).

 

We are definitely getting closer albeit even if ITER works perfectly the commercial versions won't be working until at least the 2040's.

 

At any rate, Germany is making great strides in being a renewable country. Once they get past a 75% annual production threshold, i'd suggest that the UK will follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JET (here in the UK) actually produced fusion. ITER (being built in France) plans to produce fusion power for 5 years (other projects in Canada and South Korea).

 

We are definitely getting closer albeit even if ITER works perfectly the commercial versions won't be working until at least the 2040's.

 

At any rate, Germany is making great strides in being a renewable country. Once they get past a 75% annual production threshold, i'd suggest that the UK will follow.

SB, they've promising all that, for as long as I can remember. But, what can fusion provide, that waves, wind and solar cannot - nothing? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SB, they've promising all that, for as long as I can remember. But, what can fusion provide, that waves, wind and solar cannot - nothing? :)

 

Electricity -  when very cold anticyclonic conditions occur with fog during the day....

We would be stuffed.

MIA

:nonono::sorry::cc_confused::wallbash:

 

Oh sorry I forgot that cannot  happen ever again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SB, they've promising all that, for as long as I can remember. But, what can fusion provide, that waves, wind and solar cannot - nothing? :)

potential star ship propulsion ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electricity -  when very cold anticyclonic conditions occur with fog during the day....

We would be stuffed.

MIA

:nonono::sorry::cc_confused::wallbash:

 

Oh sorry I forgot that cannot  happen ever again!

You almost got me, there, MIA: why not use sunlight, waves and wind (when they're there?) to pump water uphill? You can then use the potential gravitational energy to power turbines? It's called 'saving for a rainy day'? ;)  ;)  :D

potential star ship propulsion ??

Now, that's something-else. We can hardly use solar power for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JET (here in the UK) actually produced fusion. ITER (being built in France) plans to produce fusion power for 5 years (other projects in Canada and South Korea).

 

We are definitely getting closer albeit even if ITER works perfectly the commercial versions won't be working until at least the 2040's.

 

At any rate, Germany is making great strides in being a renewable country. Once they get past a 75% annual production threshold, i'd suggest that the UK will follow.

I was given the whole glossy press pack in the early '80s which included a big sectional view (like those we saw in the Eagle comic) of the JET tokamak.  I'll see if I can find it.

 

The energy needed to "fire" the fusion reaction is greater than the total power on the Grid, so massive flywheel generators were "spun up" from the Grid and the energy stored after several hour's acceleration is discharged into the plasma in a fraction of a second.  I worked on power electronics but unfortunately nothing as hefty as that.

 

There is a Supergrid link to the Cullingham JET site straight from the banking yard of Didcot power station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SB, they've promising all that, for as long as I can remember. But, what can fusion provide, that waves, wind and solar cannot - nothing? :)

You still need baseload currently supplied by coal and nuclear.  The spinning reserve of turbo-alternator sets spun up to speed and synchronised to the Grid, which can respond to any rapidly fluctuating load ie all those kettles switched on during the advertising slots of major soaps.  I understand that back in the Sixties (ie the days of the CEGB) a generating set was connected to the Grid a just couple of degrees out of phase and the entire set promptly exited though the roof of the power station.  It takes several hours to spin up and synchronise a big turbo-alternator set.

 

Gas-fired stations can be spun up to speed and synchronised in less than an hour - combined-cycle sets are spun-up by the gas turbine alone before the hot turbine exhaust is available to raise steam for the associated steam turbine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You almost got me, there, MIA: why not use sunlight, waves and wind (when they're there?) to pump water uphill? You can then use the potential gravitational energy to power turbines? It's called 'saving for a rainy day'? ;)  ;)  :D

Now, that's something-else. We can hardly use solar power for that?

 

Ah, I get it now....   But most of the ideal storage sites in England have already been used.  Scotland, Norway, etc wont help someone outside of the EEC. :nonono: :nonono: :nonono:

 

Seriously though have you any idea what the excess ongoing power would be needed to generate such an emergency pool. I suspect we would need tens  of mlllions of  windmills to achieve that sort of power coverage. Or have you invented a method by which we get a  gain in energy by dropping it after lifting it into the air in the first place. I think you might find its only about 20% efficient.

 

Why are you so against fusion? What is wrong with it?   Its looks to me to be sort the sort of thing we should be spending money on during a research and development stage.

 

By way of interest - what do you think Corbyn's position would be?. There is no currently forseen easy way it could be used for military use.

Or is he (and you?)  just anti-nuclear, in true greenist tradition.

 

MIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still need baseload currently supplied by coal and nuclear.  The spinning reserve of turbo-alternator sets spun up to speed and synchronised to the Grid, which can respond to any rapidly fluctuating load ie all those kettles switched on during the advertising slots of major soaps.  I understand that back in the Sixties (ie the days of the CEGB) a generating set was connected to the Grid a just couple of degrees out of phase and the entire set promptly exited though the roof of the power station.  It takes several hours to spin up and synchronise a big turbo-alternator set.

 

Gas-fired stations can be spun up to speed and synchronised in less than an hour - combined-cycle sets are spun-up by the gas turbine alone before the hot turbine exhaust is available to raise steam for the associated steam turbine.

Good points, Pete; but, couldn't tidal power (it's perpetual after all?) provide the baseload? I'm sure that I wouldn't die, if I had to rely on rooftop solar panels, wind-power and a battery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I get it now....   But most of the ideal storage sites in England have already been used.  Scotland, Norway, etc wont help someone outside of the EEC. :nonono: :nonono: :nonono:

 

Seriously though have you any idea what the excess ongoing power would be needed to generate such an emergency pool. I suspect we would need tens  of mlllions of  windmills to achieve that sort of power coverage. Or have you invented a method by which we get a  gain in energy by dropping it after lifting it into the air in the first place. I think you might find its only about 20% efficient.

 

Why are you so against fusion? What is wrong with it?   Its looks to me to be sort the sort of thing we should be spending money on during a research and development stage.

 

By way of interest - what do you think Corbyn's position would be?. There is no currently forseen easy way it could be used for military use.

Or is he (and you?)  just anti-nuclear, in true greenist tradition.

 

MIA

Well, once fossil-fuels have run out (or are not sufficiently profitable to extract), what are we left with, alchemy? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, Pete; but, couldn't tidal power (it's perpetual after all?) provide the baseload? I'm sure that I wouldn't die, if I had to rely on rooftop solar panels, wind-power and a battery?

We already have hydro for baseload, but think of all the Nimbys kicking off should anyone attempt a new hydroelectric project.  The same would happen should someone propose tidal barrages.  It's already happened here over the proposed Mersey barrage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I suspect we would need tens  of mlllions of  windmills to achieve that sort of power coverage - Midlands Ice Age"*

 

The typical output of a wind turbine is around 10MVA.  A typical coal/nuclear power station uses turbo-alternator sets rated at around 600MVA.  In my day typical CEGB stations had four such sets giving a capacity of around 2,400MVA - equivalent to 240 wind turbines.

 

Hardly millions.

 

*bloody duff javascript

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electricity -  when very cold anticyclonic conditions occur with fog during the day....

We would be stuffed.

MIA

:nonono::sorry::cc_confused::wallbash:

 

Oh sorry I forgot that cannot  happen ever again!

 

 

You still need baseload currently supplied by coal and nuclear.  The spinning reserve of turbo-alternator sets spun up to speed and synchronised to the Grid, which can respond to any rapidly fluctuating load ie all those kettles switched on during the advertising slots of major soaps.  I understand that back in the Sixties (ie the days of the CEGB) a generating set was connected to the Grid a just couple of degrees out of phase and the entire set promptly exited though the roof of the power station.  It takes several hours to spin up and synchronise a big turbo-alternator set.

 

Gas-fired stations can be spun up to speed and synchronised in less than an hour - combined-cycle sets are spun-up by the gas turbine alone before the hot turbine exhaust is available to raise steam for the associated steam turbine.

 

You both raised a good point however i think (if we're not already) the plan is to be part of a European energy grid. Assuming we get round to that in the next 20 years then we should have a range of sources flowing to and from when needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that the problem with nimbys, Pete - they stand in the way of everything?

 

When I first arrived in the Scottish Highlands, HE was cheaper than other source of power; until Tony Bleurgh made it more expensive. Why was that? I wonder. Nimbyism by the backdoor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You both raised a good point however i think (if we're not already) the plan is to be part of a European energy grid. Assuming we get round to that in the next 20 years then we should have a range of sources flowing to and from when needed.

We've already got it - the cross-Channel DC Interconnector?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've already got it - the cross-Channel DC Interconnector?

 

but surely guys...

 

If its cold in the UK. Its more than likely that it will be exremely cold in Europe. Still we all know the French will send us their energy. :friends::oops: 

 

MIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but surely guys...

 

If its cold in the UK. Its more than likely that it will be exremely cold in Europe. Still we all know the French will send us their energy. :friends::oops:

 

MIA

Check out France's nuclear capacity - plenty of it and it's cheap.

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but surely guys...

 

If its cold in the UK. Its more than likely that it will be exremely cold in Europe. Still we all know the French will send us their energy. :friends::oops:

 

MIA

But cold doesn't mean cloudy and windless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...