Fusion Energy

[SeanyTheSailor]

Article

 

Apparently what scientists are trying to do is use the worlds largest laser to hit some hydrogen isotopes hopefully causing a controllable fusion reaction. Essentially they are trying to create a tiny star on the earth's surface and use it for energy. I think it is an awesome concept but quite frankly if they mess up or something goes wrong I'm scared [cabbage]less. A star on the earth's surface doesn't sound so good if it's out of control.

 

Opinions? Comments?

[Guthorm]

So a tiny sun? Won't that completely melt earth? :ohnoes:

[Danqazmlp]

It sounds pretty cool, but i'm not very optimistic. I won't try to act as if I know much about the field as I know very little. Good luck to them.

[SeanyTheSailor]

So a tiny sun? Won't that completely melt earth? :ohnoes:

In theory they can control it. As of yet humanity has not been able to control a FUSION reaction. Thats what this is. Its kind of confusing because the sun is an uncontrolled reaction. I won't pretend to fully understand it. I imagine its like the already existing nuclear reactors but fusion reactions are way more powerful, so more energy.

[Danqazmlp]

So a tiny sun? Won't that completely melt earth? :ohnoes:

In theory they can control it. As of yet humanity has not been able to control a FUSION reaction. Thats what this is.

 

 

And it won't exactly be big. As the article sad, it will last only a minute fraction of a second, and will be less than 1/3rd the width of a human hair.

[Saru Inc]

Even seen spiderman 2. fml i don't want an octopus man walking around america. do it in Europe please. cool idea though

[SeanyTheSailor]

So a tiny sun? Won't that completely melt earth? :ohnoes:

In theory they can control it. As of yet humanity has not been able to control a FUSION reaction. Thats what this is.

 

 

And it won't exactly be big. As the article sad, it will last only a minute fraction of a second, and will be less than 1/3rd the width of a human hair.

I didn't read that as I was supposed to be working on something.(I was in school) I wonder how much energy that would be though. Also i wonder how they plan to contain it and turn it into energy. I know with regular nuclear power they put the fuel in water, but since they are setting off the reaction with a laser wouldn't the laser be diverted/refracted or whatever?

[jamesrules90]

Meh they've been using lasers to try to induce fusion for ages. The reactions dont last very long and I doubt we are going to get much energy out of it anytime soon. We should just use solar power and get more solar energy.

[TTanT]

So a tiny sun? Won't that completely melt earth? :ohnoes:

 

Worst case scenario?

 

A bunch of scientists die in an explosion that's about the equivalent of a nuke.

 

Since I'm not a scientist, I'm not worried.

[Skeptical]

I'm just too cyncial to believe that there will be such an "easy" fix... although I certainly do hope that I'm wrong.

[OldJoe]

As soon as i hear things like this i think of sci-fi.

They say it won't be dangerous if it fails, however i'm sceptical when i hear nuclear reaction+failure.

 

But when reading about how much oil is getting pumped into the sea per day from that oil-rig which had explosions on it, i guess mankind can't [bleep] up earth more than we already have.

I personally feel that nuclear-power plants is the only possible current option of "clean" electricity.

 

In my country they are talking about shutting down reactor x and y every now and then... But what are the alternatives? Oil and coal from Russia? No thanks. Windmills? No thanks, you can never replace other sources of energy with enough windmills which costs a crap-load and also destroys the landscape. Trapping even more rivers in the north? No thanks, you have already destroyed enough of waters for us sport-fishers.

I would gladly see nuclear energy go away (i only live 1h with car away from a plant), but to solve the energy problems currently, i can't see much better options.

Going back to the disgusting oil, i'd like to see liquid-hydrogen being pushed forward far more than it's now.

[Lenticular_J]

Fission is for atomic bombs, right? Well, we got that down pretty good. On to the next frontier of tearing [cabbage] apart for our own gain!

[SeanyTheSailor]

We've been able to fuse atoms since the cold war, we just haven't been able to control the reaction yet.

[superson]

Fission is for atomic bombs, right? Well, we got that down pretty good. On to the next frontier of tearing [cabbage] apart for our own gain!

 

Fusion is involved in hydrogen bombs, which are usually 'jump-started' with atomic bombs that are using nuclear fission. In my physics class we learned about nuclear power, and fission vs. fusion. I don't remember all of it, but I didn't hear anything about "creating little suns." Supposedly the first nuclear fusion power station was scheduled to be open in 2016 (I believe in France?)

 

Nuclear fusion is preferable to nuclear fission for two reasons;

1) It doesn't create as much (not sure if it creates any?) nuclear waste, compared to fission.

2) It can't melt down. If the reaction goes awry, as opposed to reacting out of control and melting out of its chamber (Chernobyl), it simply shuts itself down (fizzles out basically).

 

Again though, I don't think it's very related to 'mini-suns'. Articles about science tend to oversimplify the actual work that's going on, or put it into terms a person can understand (often losing what's really happening.)

 

After reading the article, I've come to understand they're basically saying it will use hydrogen fusion power, which the sun does use, therefore they compare it to the Sun. I'm not against them doing this to help people understand what's going on (although most people don't understand what's going on in the Sun anyway), but their statement is basically like saying:

 

"Trees grow by using photosynthesis. We have created a laser that causes particles to undergo photosynthesis. Therefore, we have created little trees!"

[SeanyTheSailor]

Fission is for atomic bombs, right? Well, we got that down pretty good. On to the next frontier of tearing [cabbage] apart for our own gain!

 

Fusion is involved in hydrogen bombs, which are usually 'jump-started' with atomic bombs that are using nuclear fission. In my physics class we learned about nuclear power, and fission vs. fusion. I don't remember all of it, but I didn't hear anything about "creating little suns." Supposedly the first nuclear fusion power station was scheduled to be open in 2016 (I believe in France?)

 

Nuclear fusion is preferable to nuclear fission for two reasons;

1) It doesn't create as much (not sure if it creates any?) nuclear waste, compared to fission.

2) It can't melt down. If the reaction goes awry, as opposed to reacting out of control and melting out of its chamber (Chernobyl), it simply shuts itself down (fizzles out basically).

 

Again though, I don't think it's very related to 'mini-suns'. Articles about science tend to oversimplify the actual work that's going on, or put it into terms a person can understand (often losing what's really happening.)

 

After reading the article, I've come to understand they're basically saying it will use hydrogen fusion power, which the sun does use, therefore they compare it to the Sun. I'm not against them doing this to help people understand what's going on (although most people don't understand what's going on in the Sun anyway), but their statement is basically like saying:

 

"Trees grow by using photosynthesis. We have created a laser that causes particles to undergo photosynthesis. Therefore, we have created little trees!"

As for the fusion station in France, unless something happened they have never been able to control a fusion reaction so currently a power plant would be impossible. I don't know about the waste thing as I've never heard anything about that. I don't understand why it can't melt down, that sounds like bull imo but I'm no expert. I do know that fusion reactions are supposed to be more powerful (apparently the fusion bomb was 700 times more powerful than the atom bomb, saw this in a film in chemistry) so i assume that would mean more energy.

[Skull]

It's just a fusion reaction. CNN only called it a mini sun to dumb it down and because the reporter most likely has no idea what they're trying to write about, leading to the misconception that these scientists are going to basically make a small sun that's going to sit around and provide the world with energy which is not the case. It's simply a fusion reaction that's used for energy and is supposedly efficient.

[SeanyTheSailor]

I realize it seems outrageous for them to create a tiny star, but that doesn't mean it isn't actually what they are doing. We've already said all a star is is a continuous fusion reaction, so I don't see why you all dismiss it so readily.

[superson]

I don't have a source to cite to you, but I do know that while fission reactions, if something bad happens, will react out of control (chain reactions), fusion reactions, if something bad happens, will simply cool down, thus stopping themselves. Again I cannot find a source proving this at this time, but I do remember talking about it specifically in physics class as one of the main advantages.

 

Secondly while fusion does produce more energy per reaction/size/whatever, it is not as if it is the same cost to fuse/fizz an equal amount (in terms of mass or in terms of size) of material.

 

So it's not like you can just take some Uranium that you were planning to perform fission on and say "Hey let's fuse it!" and get hundreds of times more energy. If that made sense.

[Albel]

It sounds pretty cool, but i'm not very optimistic. I won't try to act as if I know much about the field as I know very little. Good luck to them.

My thoughts exactly. Fusion on any scale would be hard to do. This however could be revolutionary for world energy. Just better make sure they can control it. I wish them the best.

[Giordano]

I've always been a supporter for nuclear energy. Just find the proper way to do it quickly.

[fastortoise]

OKAY MORANS:

 

IRON: most stable nucleus

bigger atoms want to split to make smaller nuclei, releasing energy.

small atoms want to join together at very high temperatures to make bigger ones to go towards iron, this produces energy. that's what happens in stars, that's why they're so bright. The easiest fusion reaction is between 2 hydrogen isotopes (heavy and super heavy hydrogen), get them close enough and they become helium 5 which splits into helium and a neutron and releases a [cabbage]load of energy. We're being constantly bombarded by neutrons from this exact reaction from the core of the sun but they just wiz through us. Scientists only care about the easy fusion of heavy and superheavy hydrogen. Superheavy hydrogen is not found in nature but we can get it with a simple reaction with lithium which is very abundant.

 

WE CAN DO FUSION. We just don't have the technology to convert the energy from fusion into electricity. I'm a goddamn biology major that didn't study physics for 2 years and I know more than you people... go read a book.

[Riku3220]

WE CAN DO FUSION. We just don't have the technology to convert the energy from fusion into electricity. I'm a goddamn biology major that didn't study physics for 2 years and I know more than you people... go read a book.

I could've sworn the reason we don't do fusion is because it requires more energy to start than it produces.

[fastortoise]

WE CAN DO FUSION. We just don't have the technology to convert the energy from fusion into electricity. I'm a goddamn biology major that didn't study physics for 2 years and I know more than you people... go read a book.

I could've sworn the reason we don't do fusion is because it requires more energy to start than it produces.

Why would they even bother researching it as a possible energy source if it consumes more energy than it produced.

HERMDURPBLURP

[mario_sunny]

WE CAN DO FUSION. We just don't have the technology to convert the energy from fusion into electricity. I'm a goddamn biology major that didn't study physics for 2 years and I know more than you people... go read a book.

I could've sworn the reason we don't do fusion is because it requires more energy to start than it produces.

Why would they even bother researching it as a possible energy source if it consumes more energy than it produced.

HERMDURPBLURP

 

You don't have to be rude. You can simply state your arguements without all those captial letters.

 

The research would probably reveal more efficient ways to do it... as in finding a way to gain more energy than is put into it.

[Saru Inc]

WE CAN DO FUSION. We just don't have the technology to convert the energy from fusion into electricity. I'm a goddamn biology major that didn't study physics for 2 years and I know more than you people... go read a book.

I could've sworn the reason we don't do fusion is because it requires more energy to start than it produces.

Why would they even bother researching it as a possible energy source if it consumes more energy than it produced.

HERMDURPBLURP

 

 

made me lol.

 

 

And all goofing aside... I'm semi surprised we're not doing this sooner.