Nuclear fusion plausible?
- Thread starter mrhappyface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What do nuclear power plants run off? Is it Fission?
I don't see nuclear energy being used on a small scale but who knows?
I don't see nuclear energy being used on a small scale but who knows?
what, like, nuclear power plants and whatnot?
In all honesty, no. Yes, it may not cause emmisions and whatnot, but in the long run its likely to cause more problems than its worth, considering the dangers of nuclear waste.
We have methods like wind, waves, solar, etc, at our disposal, why use nuclear?
In all honesty, no. Yes, it may not cause emmisions and whatnot, but in the long run its likely to cause more problems than its worth, considering the dangers of nuclear waste.
We have methods like wind, waves, solar, etc, at our disposal, why use nuclear?
Fission isn't quite the same as fusion... In fact it's quite the opposite. Fission is the act of splitting the atom, fusion... Not so much.orangebandguy said:
More OT: I'm hoping fusion will become a certainty. It'd be quite nice. :< But as it stands I'm still hoping for the bit with hydrogen power.
Yes, I think we will have it going in about a decade and it will be used extensively in two, but that is being optimistic.
Yes. Yes I do.mrhappyface said:
Aside from the snarky response of "well there's that shiny orb in the sky and it works via fusion", I would also point to the various advances made in the field of magnetohydrodynamics. While the best fusion reactors are only self sustaining (in that they produce sufficient power to keep themselves running but no excess power), you'll be hard pressed to find a power solution that provides a higher energy density with lower intrinsic risks associated with it. In the case of the most well known reactor design, a catastropic malfuction of the reactor's containment would simply result in severe damage/destruction of the local structure. Since the process does not involve any intrinsically radioactive materials, the risk is, comparatively, smaller than a similar disaster in a fission reaction. When compared to coal, which takes a heavy toll on the local environment even under routine operating proceedures, it's even safer.
Do you mean will it exist in the future? Well I can think of one big, bright, answer, but others have allready pointed out it is around today.
But I think by "source of energy" you meant "will we have fusion power plants in the future?" The answer to that question is yes, a better question is when.
But I think by "source of energy" you meant "will we have fusion power plants in the future?" The answer to that question is yes, a better question is when.
its allot more effective and all that crap you hear about nuclear waste is... well.... just thatSimalacrum said:
almost all nuclear waste is a solid for a start.
they dont dump barrels of it in national parks
(how can people believe this, it would emit gamma radiation killing everything nearby fast... it would be really obvious even from a great distance,y'know... a 50mtr wide dead patch with an unusual buzz and eye trauma when you look at it?)
anyway emmitions in the future will be flew into space as its an elegant solution if we aim it right.
besides it creates lots of jobs,creates less emitions and is helping our understanding of atomic structures
(this post was brought to you by atomix inc. XD..... no really¬_¬)
yeshZepren said:Yes, ignore the hippies. Nuclear is the way to go tbh. I think they shud blast the waste into space though. Think about it, theres already radiation in space
dish ish da vay forwash
nuclear powersh ish awshome
¬_¬ i lv nuclear anything