Fusion reactors 'economically viable' say experts

[davehsug]

But cold doesn't mean cloudy and windless?

Why are you so against fusion? When it finally works, it's very cheap & clean. Surely we're better having a hundred fusion reactors than hundreds of thousands of turbines or barrages?

[Methuselah]

Why are you so against fusion? When it finally works, it's very cheap & clean. Surely we're better having a hundred fusion reactors than hundreds of thousands of turbines or barrages?

But will it ever work? It was 1947 when they first suggested it as a panacea. I've lost faith, over the decades, that's all... What's wrong with turbines and barrages?

[davehsug]

Ed Stone, on 02 Oct 2015 - 22:43, said:

But will it ever work? It was 1947 when they first suggested it as a panacea. I've lost faith, over the decades, that's all... What's wrong with turbines and barrages?

I agree, but it will work eventually. We can't cover the country with turbines though & Barrages have their own problems. More of a mystery to me is why every new building, commercial & homes, isn't built with solar panels & a domestic turbine as a matter of course?

[Methuselah]

I agree, but it will work eventually. We can't cover the country with turbines though & Barrages have their own problems. More of a mystery to me is why every new building, commercial & homes, isn't built with solar panels & a domestic turbine as a matter of course?

Indeed, dave: it's a mystery to me, too!

[Wildswimmer Pete]

Why are you so against fusion? When it finally works, it's very cheap & clean. Surely we're better having a hundred fusion reactors than hundreds of thousands of turbines or barrages?

We built the first large fusion machine: ZETA (Zero Energy Torus Apparatus) in 1957.  I wouldn't trust current claims as to why the ZETA was abandoned - I was a kid at the time and remember the real reason was because the brain-dead military high brass wanted their big boy's toys to threaten the USSR during the Cold War.  So we took the fission course with the excuse of "electricity too cheap to meter" (which didn't happen) and built the Calder Hall* reactor.  The real purpose wasn't civil power but of course plutonium for bombs.  It was an immediately neighbouring air-cooled graphite-moderated pile that went into meltdown in '57.  And we are still playing with our dangerous little toys.

 

*Calder Hall is now part of the Sellafield site.

[Midlands Ice Age]

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/

 

Thanks Pete..

 

Great for France... (we should have done the same)

 

but how about the rest of Europe. Do they have enough spare capacity for all of Europe as well as the UK?.

 

Remember that the last 2 years have seen mild winters in Europe and during that time the spare capacity in most European has been reducing, due to coal power stations being taken off-line.  

 

I am still not convinced they will send any excess 'energy' to the UK rather than say Germany, Holland or Belgium, or even Spain or even Italy.

 

I also note that the amount that France produces by nuclear power reduces to 50% by 2025. They will then rely upon the new 'technologies' for themselves and I suspect will not be able to keep up with the demands placed upon them in any exceptional weather..

 

With our lead times (and record of implementation),  we need a secure and reliable resource for the next 15 years

 

As per France i would rather by energy independent than have to rely on others.

 

MIA

Edited October 2, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Mokidugway]

I wonder if it would be possible to harness the energy from earths van Allen belt , that would be some energy source !!.

[Wildswimmer Pete]

I wonder if it would be possible to harness the energy from earths van Allen belt , that would be some energy source !!.

Problem is - getting the power to the surface.  The geosynchronous orbit (Clarke Belt) is about 22,000 miles from Earth, well inside the Van Allen Belt.  While you could technically moor a satellite in the Clarke Belt the problem is that satellites move.  They need to continually correct the positions of communication satellites as they are nudged by the solar wind, especially after a large solar prominence.

 

Assuming we've got our power satellite correctly placed, the only way I can see using current technology to transfer large amounts energy is via microwave or laser.  The beam would have to be highly collimated over 22,000 miles to stop "spreading" over a large area.  Assuming we've got our tightly collimated beam accurately focussed on the receiving array (microwave diodes or photovoltaic cells), what happens when our satellite is nudged out of position the next time the Sun throws a wobbler?  A beam carrying gigawatts of energy goes walkabout and ends up in a city centre?

Edited October 2, 2015 by Wildswimmer Pete

[Flash bang flash bang etc]

Problem is - getting the power to the surface.  The geosynchronous orbit (Clarke Belt) is about 22,000 miles from Earth, well inside the Van Allen Belt.  While you could technically moor a satellite in the Clarke Belt the problem is that satellites move.  They need to continually correct the positions of communication satellites as they are nudged by the solar wind, especially after a large solar prominence.

 

Assuming we've got our power satellite correctly placed, the only way I can see using current technology to transfer large amounts energy is via microwave or laser.  The beam would have to be highly collimated over 22,000 miles to stop "spreading" over a large area.  Assuming we've got our tightly collimated beam accurately focussed on the receiving array (microwave diodes or photovoltaic cells), what happens when our satellite is nudged out of position the next time the Sun throws a wobbler?  A beam carrying gigawatts of energy goes walkabout and ends up in a city centre?

That's ok,Dwayne Johnson will save us

[summer blizzard]

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.  

 

MIA

Plenty of geothermal energy and sunlight.

[Wildswimmer Pete]

Plenty of geothermal energy and sunlight.

Problem is, carrying electricity 1,000 miles undersea from Iceland to the UK.  Think of the losses - we'd be immersion heating the Atlantic.  We've got enough hassle sending high voltage DC 30 miles under the Channel.  I think we have to await room temperature superconductivity - we're getting there.

[Mokidugway]

Very deep bore holes here would be cheaper to tap into geothermal energy

[summer blizzard]

Very deep bore holes here would be cheaper to tap into geothermal energy

In the UK we have the geothermal energy to provide our heating needs but no more than 15% of our electricity.

Problem is, carrying electricity 1,000 miles undersea from Iceland to the UK.  Think of the losses - we'd be immersion heating the Atlantic.  We've got enough hassle sending high voltage DC 30 miles under the Channel.  I think we have to await room temperature superconductivity - we're getting there.

I was thinking it may be cheaper to produce geothermal energy in southern Europe and send it.