Nuclear fusion research
Some documentary told me that the UK spent more on ringtones last year than we did on research into nuclear fusion and I like nuclear fusion.

Certainly more than I like annoying ringtones.
( Captain V, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 10:30, 3 replies, latest was 17 years ago)

Yes. This
On one hand we have shit R&B music played through tinny mobile phone speakers. On the other we have the solution to the looming energy crisis for the next thousand years.

*trivia* the biggest issue with nuclear fusion isn't the physics, it's the materials technology required to contain the temperatues and pressures in the reactor itself.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Mon 22 Jun 2009, 10:36, Reply)

Well, yes
but the confinement of the plasma (at least in a tokamak) is done magnetically, so it doesn't 'touch the sides' as it were. The biggest problem is getting the plasma to sustain without having to put in more power than can be extracted.

As you say though, it's not the physics. We understand the theory pretty well. It's more of an engineering problem now.

Fission is OK, but we could run out of uranium relatively soon. Whereas we've got oceans full of water, and there's enough deuterium in it to keep us going for a long time yet. And electric cars are useless if you can't generate the electricity. Fusion is the only long term solution. IMHO.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 10:50, Reply)

Agreed
There is only a finite amount of useful Uranium in the ground, certainly not enough to compete with fossil fuels.

The point everyone seems to miss is that an electric car is using electricity generated mostly from non-sustainable means. We need to find a way of replacing an oil and gas based energy infrastructure within the next thirty years.

I'd happily stomach the 300% tax markup on the cost of a litre of petrol if the tax raised was spent on alternative energy research...
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:04, Reply)

A bit of education for the masses
On Green/Sustainable living wouldn't go amiss. In fact perhaps introduce it into school as compulsory.

I mean I'd say almost everyone I've lived with at University has had a fundamental issue with electricity saving. For example, leaving all the lights on before leaving the flat for the day. Or leaving every device on standby rather than turning off.

Not that I'm perfect, but if this is the state of supposedly affluent and educated people, it makes you wonder.
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:29, Reply)

Can we have more nuclear power stations too?
I like them.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 10:36, Reply)

Yes we can!
Fission is great, and we need more of it, but I prefer the idea of having a miniature star in a box. I can't think of anything cooler and whenever I talk about fusion I want to be a nuclear physicist.
( Captain V, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 10:39, Reply)

Is it cold fission or cold fusion
that's meant to be the holy grail of nuclear physics?

And fission's splitting and fusion's...fusing, isn't it?
/A* at GCSE Physics! Activate!
( Lampito rise with the moon, go to bed with the sun, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 10:59, Reply)

Sort of
Cold fusion is the holy grail in the sense that nobody has ever been able to reproduce it after it was first claimed to have been observed. Cold fusion is all a bunch of balls though.

If we can properly utilise fusion we're sorted for energy for yonks so in some ways that's the holy grail of a lot of things.

You're right with fission splitting and fusion fusing.
( Captain V, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:02, Reply)

My knowledge of that comes from Jasper Fforde
where they manage to get a cold fusion machine out of a radioactive cucumber.
That's where i learnt about entropy too.
It's all bullshit, but it's brilliantly written bullshit.

I know very little about science. But fusion is what goes on in the sun, so having fusion on a small scale is having a mini-sun? Won't that be horrifically dangerous?

I'm so getting kicked out of Utopia. I'd jsut be bitching about how it doesn't make etymological sense.
( Lampito rise with the moon, go to bed with the sun, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:05, Reply)

It's being done quite frequently already
It's just that, as K2 said, we need more energy to maintain it than we get from the reaction.

:edit: Horrifically dangerous would be three drunk manic depressives and an axe in the same building...
( Captain V, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:09, Reply)

Yes,
There should be checks in place to stop that happening.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:45, Reply)

Fusion
The resulting radiation is a fraction of what you get from existing nuclear plants, all you need is the technology to contain the reaction and a supply of deuterium. As it happens, there is a lot of it on the moon, which is why Russia, India, the US, Japan and the EU are working towards a permanent manned presence there within the next thirty years or so.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:13, Reply)

Dangerous?
Nope - fusion (in a tokamak) is totally self-regulating and the reaction will stop naturally if there's a leak.
(Shippy likes linebreaks and doesn't care what you think, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:24, Reply)

Oh, that's good.
So fission is more dangerous, because any leak basically pwns the world?

I'm aware of how stupid I'm sounding. Sorry.
( Lampito rise with the moon, go to bed with the sun, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:26, Reply)

not sounding stupid at all
it's more than acceptable to not know about something, and at least you are asking sensible questions
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:30, Reply)

Ha, it's more like all I'm doing in this thread is asking things.
It's like, GTFO and come back when you can actually contribute something!

Ah well. There do seem to be a lot of sciencey bods here. I feel so intimidated!
( Lampito rise with the moon, go to bed with the sun, Mon 22 Jun 2009, 11:34, Reply)