PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Nuclear fusion what is it worth?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:48 am    Post subject: Nuclear fusion what is it worth? Reply with quote

Quote:
The Guardian - 16/07/10

Experiments in fusion power have at last started to prove its viability. It would be foolish not to continue funding research.

Article continues ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
2 As and a B



Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 2592

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The article is written by Steven Cowley, chief executive officer of United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and head of EURATOM/CCFE fusion association.

Quote:
Unfortunately, it is hard to make fusion work. Indeed, after more than 60 years of fusion research, no device has yet made more energy than it consumes.

Quote:
Unfortunately, Iter's construction expenses have risen from about 5bn to over 13bn and the cost overruns have prompted some to question why chasing nuclear fusion is a priority.

Me included. Even if possible, nuclear fusion power could not be implemented before societal collapse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

foodimista wrote:
Me included. Even if possible, nuclear fusion power could not be implemented before societal collapse.

You can't say that with any more certainty than the scientist saying fusion will be working in 20 years or whatever. No one know the timescale or structure of societal collapse.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
2 As and a B



Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 2592

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Without an energy subsidy, there will be a collapse. There is no new cheap energy store to be found and nowhere to expand the population into.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7634

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If only the world was was such a simple, linear, single variable problem! It's just not. The US, just for example, use some 22% of the world's oil in 22mpg ave. vehicles (maybe a bit less when HGVs are included). Over a decade or so, they could double that to 44mpg, could car share, could stop driving 80-mile daily commutes in F-150 SUVs etc... This is a new source of energy.

The key is adaptation. If one assumes NOTHING changes as our energy system changes around us, you'd have a reasonable chance of making a prediction. However, we know the system is non-linear, it is dynamic, there are tipping points, collapses do happen. Identifying where/where they occur though is pretty much impossible.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ludwig



Joined: 08 Jul 2008
Posts: 3849
Location: Cambridgeshire

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
foodimista wrote:
Me included. Even if possible, nuclear fusion power could not be implemented before societal collapse.

You can't say that with any more certainty than the scientist saying fusion will be working in 20 years or whatever. No one know the timescale or structure of societal collapse.

You can form a good guess. Societal collapse will happen when oil imports become unaffordable, the stock market crashes, jobs disappear, people start getting very hungry, and government can no longer afford to provide the services that keep society running.

I guess that this will happen around 2012 or 2013 - when the oil production downslope starts in earnest, oil prices can't be kept stable even in a world of declining economic activity, and the reality of dwindling oil supplies cuts short all investment.

Chances of getting fusion working by then = 0.
_________________
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
2 As and a B



Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 2592

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, to my mind, funding of nuclear fusion will be forced to cease due to high cost and more immediate priorities like pacifying the populace or invading other countries for their wealth*. Whether that happens before or during collapse is immaterial.

* A note to the fag-end farmer here, to pre-empt the usual knee-jerk reaction - that does not mean I support invasion of other countries, nor that I assume that the UK would be doing the invading.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RGR
Banned


Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2011
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="foodimista"]

Last edited by RGR on Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
RGR
Banned


Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2011
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Ludwig"]

Last edited by RGR on Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:20 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Totally_Baffled



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2824
Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I guess that this will happen around 2012 or 2013 - when the oil production downslope starts in earnest, oil prices can't be kept stable even in a world of declining economic activity, and the reality of dwindling oil supplies cuts short all investment.


You are very brave making a prediction like this Ludwig! Very Happy

You are on the hook for this one - lets revisit in 24 - 36 months Smile

Im still waiting for Iran to be invaded, the dollar to collapse, US natural gas production to collapse, the death of 6 billion from swine/bird flu, collapse of Gwhahar, and so on and so forth! Smile

Snowhope must be practically buried in baked beans I should think (although sooner or later he will be right and he can have the last laugh at my expense!)
_________________
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RGR
Banned


Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2011
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA

PostPosted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Totally_Baffled"]

Last edited by RGR on Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:20 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Euratom is ridiculous. I think the technical term is Anachronistic actually.

It was founded, with perfectly good intentions, to develop "peaceful" use for nukes. It came into being at the same time as the ISTC (Iron and steel trades) and one other trade agreement, the latter 2 eventually becoming the EEC, but Euratom was deliberately left as it was because nuclear was so unpopular by then that just mentioning it would have completely stymied what were already complicated and delicate negotiations.

I can see why Euratom was founded, and I can see it must have been a good idea at a time, but history moves on, and we now know nuclear fission is not the panacea ("too cheap to meter") it was once thought, and nuclear fusion, 20 years away when I was a kid, is still 20 years away now I have a daughter and son of my own.

The UK can, if it wishes, leave Euratom without compromising our position within the EU (Euratom isn't accountable to the Euro Parliament, or to anyone else as far as I can tell). Germany were seriously contemplating doing this, with their Green coalition.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
meemoe_uk
Banned


Joined: 27 Dec 2010
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hot nuclear fusion is near hopeless. It's not worth the time and energy being put into it.
In fact for me it stands out as one of the most clear examples of the energy cartel preventing useful research into energy sources.

The situation is :
The worlds got a bunch of clever, well motivated , capable, principled energy scientists.
The world energy cartel doesn't want loads of new energy markets popping up here there and everywhere competing with their established base.
- What to do?

- Monopolise all these scientists into working their whole lives at a hopeless idea.
- The hot fusion industry is too vast + cumbersome for anyone to steer it. So if scientists want a steady paycheck, they just gotta go along with the hopeless flow. Complaining about it won't change anything.
- Hot fusion takes up all the high tech energy source grants but returns nothing, while wind power is a poor enough energy source that it can be deployed without it threatening the big energy industry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

meemoe_uk wrote:
Hot nuclear fusion is near hopeless.
That's the first sensible thing you've said here Very Happy

Now, about the Cartel. Haven't they ever heard of, erm, Tent Hygene?
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13973
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
meemoe_uk wrote:
Hot nuclear fusion is near hopeless.
That's the first sensible thing you've said here Very Happy


+1
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group