Comments on: Will Nuclear Fusion Solve the Energy Crisis? http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/13/will-nuclear-fusion-solve-the-energy-crisis/ Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: zemadeiran http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/13/will-nuclear-fusion-solve-the-energy-crisis/#comment-3979 zemadeiran Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:33:31 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1494#comment-3979 I personally believe that further development of fission would yield excellent results to the point at which we can build solid state fission reactors. Unfortunately we are still stuck in the steam age and need to move to direct conversion from radiation to electrons aka solid state fission. Regards I personally believe that further development of fission would yield excellent results to the point at which we can build solid state fission reactors. Unfortunately we are still stuck in the steam age and need to move to direct conversion from radiation to electrons aka solid state fission.

Regards

]]> By: zemadeiran http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/13/will-nuclear-fusion-solve-the-energy-crisis/#comment-20817 zemadeiran Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:33:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1494#comment-20817 I personally believe that further development of fission would yield excellent results to the point at which we can build solid state fission reactors. Unfortunately we are still stuck in the steam age and need to move to direct conversion from radiation to electrons aka solid state fission. Regards I personally believe that further development of fission would yield excellent results to the point at which we can build solid state fission reactors. Unfortunately we are still stuck in the steam age and need to move to direct conversion from radiation to electrons aka solid state fission.

Regards

]]> By: aaron http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/13/will-nuclear-fusion-solve-the-energy-crisis/#comment-3978 aaron Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:37:33 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1494#comment-3978 @Bryan Though you're correct in pointing out that many of the fusion methods with the most potential rely on extra heavy hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), this is only a problem in the short term. Simply increasing the efficiency of the process allows you to use other atomic species. To put is simply, the sun is running of hydrogen, not its rare isotope cousins. Also, there are some very interesting processes that utilize hydrogen and boron (both rediculously abundant for what would be needed) in a process that has no radioactive precursor, intermediate, or product. @Bryan

Though you’re correct in pointing out that many of the fusion methods with the most potential rely on extra heavy hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), this is only a problem in the short term. Simply increasing the efficiency of the process allows you to use other atomic species. To put is simply, the sun is running of hydrogen, not its rare isotope cousins. Also, there are some very interesting processes that utilize hydrogen and boron (both rediculously abundant for what would be needed) in a process that has no radioactive precursor, intermediate, or product.

]]> By: aaron http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/13/will-nuclear-fusion-solve-the-energy-crisis/#comment-20816 aaron Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:37:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1494#comment-20816 @Bryan Though you're correct in pointing out that many of the fusion methods with the most potential rely on extra heavy hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), this is only a problem in the short term. Simply increasing the efficiency of the process allows you to use other atomic species. To put is simply, the sun is running of hydrogen, not its rare isotope cousins. Also, there are some very interesting processes that utilize hydrogen and boron (both rediculously abundant for what would be needed) in a process that has no radioactive precursor, intermediate, or product. @Bryan

Though you’re correct in pointing out that many of the fusion methods with the most potential rely on extra heavy hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), this is only a problem in the short term. Simply increasing the efficiency of the process allows you to use other atomic species. To put is simply, the sun is running of hydrogen, not its rare isotope cousins. Also, there are some very interesting processes that utilize hydrogen and boron (both rediculously abundant for what would be needed) in a process that has no radioactive precursor, intermediate, or product.

]]> By: Bryan http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/13/will-nuclear-fusion-solve-the-energy-crisis/#comment-3977 Bryan Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:38:01 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1494#comment-3977 Joimama75, nuclear energy isn't the sole path to sustainable existence. Even ignoring the environmental concerns, it is not a cheap energy source. The cost of doubling our current nuclear electricity output (from 20% to 40%)would cost roughly $500 billion, and that doesn't take into account the cost of training the work force and disposing of the waste. Further, nuclear reprocessing doesn't get ride of the waste - we spent 20 years building a storage facility under Yucca Mountain that the EPA admits will leak significant radiation. Uranium isn't an unlimited resource and without further discovery we'd be lucky to make it a quarter century before we couldn't meet the demand of a nuclear-powered U.S. Distributed generation and energy conservation are in fact the key to getting off of the oil bandwagon. @Ariel, thanks for another article. To be fair, nuclear fusion isn't an unlimited power supply. It is a self-sustaining reaction but the fuel source (deuterium) is abundant but not limitless and most of the power generated goes into containing the reaction. Even if usable power can be extracted, you're still left with an isolated power source that has to be distributed over long distances to the grid, which wastes up to half of the generated energy. I'm a fan of fusion research but it's a much more humble prospect than most people picture. Joimama75, nuclear energy isn’t the sole path to sustainable existence. Even ignoring the environmental concerns, it is not a cheap energy source. The cost of doubling our current nuclear electricity output (from 20% to 40%)would cost roughly $500 billion, and that doesn’t take into account the cost of training the work force and disposing of the waste. Further, nuclear reprocessing doesn’t get ride of the waste – we spent 20 years building a storage facility under Yucca Mountain that the EPA admits will leak significant radiation. Uranium isn’t an unlimited resource and without further discovery we’d be lucky to make it a quarter century before we couldn’t meet the demand of a nuclear-powered U.S. Distributed generation and energy conservation are in fact the key to getting off of the oil bandwagon.

@Ariel, thanks for another article. To be fair, nuclear fusion isn’t an unlimited power supply. It is a self-sustaining reaction but the fuel source (deuterium) is abundant but not limitless and most of the power generated goes into containing the reaction. Even if usable power can be extracted, you’re still left with an isolated power source that has to be distributed over long distances to the grid, which wastes up to half of the generated energy. I’m a fan of fusion research but it’s a much more humble prospect than most people picture.

]]> By: Bryan http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/13/will-nuclear-fusion-solve-the-energy-crisis/#comment-20815 Bryan Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:38:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1494#comment-20815 Joimama75, nuclear energy isn't the sole path to sustainable existence. Even ignoring the environmental concerns, it is not a cheap energy source. The cost of doubling our current nuclear electricity output (from 20% to 40%)would cost roughly $500 billion, and that doesn't take into account the cost of training the work force and disposing of the waste. Further, nuclear reprocessing doesn't get ride of the waste - we spent 20 years building a storage facility under Yucca Mountain that the EPA admits will leak significant radiation. Uranium isn't an unlimited resource and without further discovery we'd be lucky to make it a quarter century before we couldn't meet the demand of a nuclear-powered U.S. Distributed generation and energy conservation are in fact the key to getting off of the oil bandwagon. @Ariel, thanks for another article. To be fair, nuclear fusion isn't an unlimited power supply. It is a self-sustaining reaction but the fuel source (deuterium) is abundant but not limitless and most of the power generated goes into containing the reaction. Even if usable power can be extracted, you're still left with an isolated power source that has to be distributed over long distances to the grid, which wastes up to half of the generated energy. I'm a fan of fusion research but it's a much more humble prospect than most people picture. Joimama75, nuclear energy isn’t the sole path to sustainable existence. Even ignoring the environmental concerns, it is not a cheap energy source. The cost of doubling our current nuclear electricity output (from 20% to 40%)would cost roughly $500 billion, and that doesn’t take into account the cost of training the work force and disposing of the waste. Further, nuclear reprocessing doesn’t get ride of the waste – we spent 20 years building a storage facility under Yucca Mountain that the EPA admits will leak significant radiation. Uranium isn’t an unlimited resource and without further discovery we’d be lucky to make it a quarter century before we couldn’t meet the demand of a nuclear-powered U.S. Distributed generation and energy conservation are in fact the key to getting off of the oil bandwagon.

@Ariel, thanks for another article. To be fair, nuclear fusion isn’t an unlimited power supply. It is a self-sustaining reaction but the fuel source (deuterium) is abundant but not limitless and most of the power generated goes into containing the reaction. Even if usable power can be extracted, you’re still left with an isolated power source that has to be distributed over long distances to the grid, which wastes up to half of the generated energy. I’m a fan of fusion research but it’s a much more humble prospect than most people picture.

]]> By: Joemama75 http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/13/will-nuclear-fusion-solve-the-energy-crisis/#comment-3976 Joemama75 Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:58:01 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1494#comment-3976 I'm sorry Uncle B but nuclear energy is the key to ending global warming and getting us off of the oil dependence bandwagon. Japan and France have known this for years and get the majority of their power from the Atom. Nuclear Reprocessing takes care of the majority of the waste produced in those two countries. The French are also working on a way to keep the reprocessed fuel from being used for nuclear weapons as well. This fact shouldn't stop those other forms of alternative energy but nuclear needs to replace oil and coal plants ASAP if we hope to tackle climate change. I’m sorry Uncle B but nuclear energy is the key to ending global warming and getting us off of the oil dependence bandwagon. Japan and France have known this for years and get the majority of their power from the Atom.

Nuclear Reprocessing takes care of the majority of the waste produced in those two countries. The French are also working on a way to keep the reprocessed fuel from being used for nuclear weapons as well. This fact shouldn’t stop those other forms of alternative energy but nuclear needs to replace oil and coal plants ASAP if we hope to tackle climate change.

]]> By: Joemama75 http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/13/will-nuclear-fusion-solve-the-energy-crisis/#comment-20814 Joemama75 Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:58:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1494#comment-20814 I'm sorry Uncle B but nuclear energy is the key to ending global warming and getting us off of the oil dependence bandwagon. Japan and France have known this for years and get the majority of their power from the Atom. Nuclear Reprocessing takes care of the majority of the waste produced in those two countries. The French are also working on a way to keep the reprocessed fuel from being used for nuclear weapons as well. This fact shouldn't stop those other forms of alternative energy but nuclear needs to replace oil and coal plants ASAP if we hope to tackle climate change. I’m sorry Uncle B but nuclear energy is the key to ending global warming and getting us off of the oil dependence bandwagon. Japan and France have known this for years and get the majority of their power from the Atom.

Nuclear Reprocessing takes care of the majority of the waste produced in those two countries. The French are also working on a way to keep the reprocessed fuel from being used for nuclear weapons as well. This fact shouldn’t stop those other forms of alternative energy but nuclear needs to replace oil and coal plants ASAP if we hope to tackle climate change.

]]> By: Uncle B http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/13/will-nuclear-fusion-solve-the-energy-crisis/#comment-3975 Uncle B Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:06:37 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1494#comment-3975 If fission were available today would it be used? Solar, wind, tidal,geothermal and wave energy are all available, yet, morons like McCain insist on filthy nuclear plants, and the province of Ontario in Canada is initiating building them? Go figure! If fission were available today would it be used? Solar, wind, tidal,geothermal and wave energy are all available, yet, morons like McCain insist on filthy nuclear plants, and the province of Ontario in Canada is initiating building them? Go figure!

]]> By: Uncle B http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/13/will-nuclear-fusion-solve-the-energy-crisis/#comment-20813 Uncle B Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:06:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1494#comment-20813 If fission were available today would it be used? Solar, wind, tidal,geothermal and wave energy are all available, yet, morons like McCain insist on filthy nuclear plants, and the province of Ontario in Canada is initiating building them? Go figure! If fission were available today would it be used? Solar, wind, tidal,geothermal and wave energy are all available, yet, morons like McCain insist on filthy nuclear plants, and the province of Ontario in Canada is initiating building them? Go figure!

]]>