Re: So what now do we do?

Of course, the *major* problem for a commerical
standpoint is not even sustaining a reaction that
provides more energy than it takes to make the
reaction, which is still a problem. The major problem
is the type of energy given off is not easily turned
into useable power. In fission, it is relatively easy
because most of the energy is heat and you can create
steam, etc. to drive turbines, or any number of ways
to generate electricity. This is not true of fusion.

And of course, because so many more neutrons are
kicked out than during fission, the reactor vessels
become brittle relatively quickly (and radioactive) --
unlike fission reactors -- requiring them to be
swapped out periodically -- unlike fission reactors
which don't need the reactor vessels swapped out --
which has the potential for driving the cost of
running such a reactor *way* up (loosely analogize it
to having to replace your car engine every few
thousand miles). Not to mention generating more
transuranic waste, etc.

--- Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jay Willingham wrote:
>
> >
> > Why don't you think fusion reactors will be
> practical?
>
> Several reasons:
>
> 1.) We have the ability to generate what we need
> with with fission reactors but
> the politics stops us. If we do not have the will to
> do what it is possible
> today, how we get the will to use fusion tomorrow.?
>
> 2.) The same politics that stops fission will
> undoubtedly stop fusion.
>
> 3.) There is waste from fusion just as there is from
> fission.
>
> 4.) current designs are monsters that are only
> experiments, not practical
> devices.
>
> 5.) We lack the resolve to just get out and do it!
> Instead, all the money spent
> is used in scientific experiments that are
> guaranteed to be dead end. to
> succeed, the world needs a cogent plan which
> presents a road map to success.
>
> 6.) I once talked to the head of the Tokamak
> reactor project at MIT. I was
> interested because it had been related to my
> dissertation. His claim at that
> time (maybe 15 years ago) was that we have no
> practical way of extracting the
> energy even if we had a reactor. I don't see that it
> has changed.
>
> I would search for other approaches. I think that it
> will take a combination --
> with no single "silver bullet".
>
>
>
>
> Walt
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
Received on Wed Dec 3 21:56:49 2003