Possible fusion in two reactors?

[Iron Lightning]

Fusion has been doable for decades. The reason we don't use it for power is that it currently takes more energy to perform the fusion reaction than is generated from the fusion reaction.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Fusion already exists. It's the principle H bombs use.
Sustained fusion, and efficient fusion are what elude scientists.

This.

Which is why they're saying it could be a problem. If a fusion reaction occurs, its likely the shielding will fail.

I'm wondering, though, how a fission reactor could spontaneously become a fusion reactor.

 

[Verlander]

There is no nuclear threat-they've prepared too well.

The fact that their dumping seawater into the reactor suggests that they haven't prepared well. It reminds me of when they dumped sand into the reactor in Chernobyl.

The workers at Chernobyl knew the explosion was eminent before it happened, but the govt wouldn't allow them to shut it down, and that wasn't during a terrible earthquake. Had Sellafield, or any other nuclear plant undergone a similar treatment, it would have gone up by now

 

[DefunctTheory]

But......while we are talking fantasy for a second, I would love to see cold fusion at least tested within my lifetime.

The Russians already did test it.

They claim they made it work. Right around the time they made the T-72 run on a perpetual motion engine.

 

[FlashHero]

So far. 3 ppl can read everything and remember to do it .

 

[Internet Kraken]

There is no nuclear threat-they've prepared too well.

The fact that their dumping seawater into the reactor suggests that they haven't prepared well. It reminds me of when they dumped sand into the reactor in Chernobyl.

The workers at Chernobyl knew the explosion was eminent before it happened, but the govt wouldn't allow them to shut it down, and that wasn't during a terrible earthquake. Had Sellafield, or any other nuclear plant undergone a similar treatment, it would have gone up by now

And what's your point? What I was saying is that they are trying something desperate because things are fucked up and they're not sure how to handle it.

 

[Toriver]

The whole western news coverage of that earthquake has been diabolical. Hopefully this will expose newsmakers as the con merchants that they actually are, but probably not.

The actual Japanese coverage has been much better, in the sense that I feel the Japanese coverage has the proper perspective on the situation rather than "all reactor, all the time" as the BBC website seems to be doing. I'm starting to believe that the BBC is using this as its own little crusade against nuclear energy by hyping up the threat to extreme levels. They're not usually guilty of this, or at least not as guilty as the American media, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it in their own, more subtle way.

There is no nuclear threat-they've prepared too well.

Not quite true. There IS a threat, but it's currently not as bad as it's being played up to be. The people living in the danger zone have been evacuated and the radiation is still contained and can yet be cooled. However, until the reactors have actually been cooled and the cooling systems are back up and running, there is still a threat of further complications and meltdown, however big or small that threat is.

There is no huge structural collapse-they've prepared too well

False. The outer wall of the building housing Reactor 1 in the Dai-ichi plant exploded yesterday afternoon. Pressure is building in Reactor 3 and that building may also explode if the right conditions form.

There is no political crisis-they've prepared too well.

This is right in the sense of there being no in-fighting right now among the politicians in Japan. However, there may be some serious political wrangling in the near future, as the PM has been beleaguered by his inability to pass a budget through before the start of the next fiscal year, and the bill for the recovery from this disaster will only add to the PM's worries. So there is no crisis now, but don't be so sure this won't create a crisis soon.

The ONE thing that Japan HAS proved is that they are far more adapt and reliable in case of emergency than Europe or North America.

Hang on there. That's not a certain thing either. Sure, after Katrina, FEMA and other agencies were in a shambles and there was widespread looting and other crime in New Orleans. But after 9/11, I would say the US emergency response crews showed a similar level of reliability and adaptability to the situation that the Japanese are showing now, in the face of their own disaster. The gulf oil spill last year was massive, and took a long time to clean up, but aside from passing around the blame for it, they did do a relatively good job of capping the ruptured line as effectively as they could. As far as Europe is concerned, a disaster of this magnitude hasn't hit Europe in a while, so it's hard to say how Europe would respond, but I wouldn't be surprised if they showed a similar level of resourcefulness and ingenuity. When something truly disastrous happens in an area, the people around it and affected by it tend to show such an ability to come together and solve the problem despite their differences, no matter where they're from, even if they go back to their squabbles afterwards. So while Japan has shown an admirable amount of reliability in this situation, that doesn't mean other countries wouldn't respond in a similar manner.

If they could create energy though, teleport devices all the way

Indeed!

 

[FlashHero]

I really want space ships that can power us to other plantes relativly fast.
So i guess teleport devices are like that but faster?
Would smaller mass mean faster speeds?

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, it would be nice if the horrors of a massive earthquake caused a miracle of science to occur that'd benefit mankind in a brief bout of serendipity.

...but I know better. All I heard was that the quake heavily-damage the two reactors and that they ARE indeed leaking.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Fusion has already existed, you idiot. This isn't anything new. The only reason we don't drive fusion-powered cars is because it wasn't the mythical magical power source the Cold War era thinkers thought it would be. It takes more energy to initiate fusion than we get out of it.

In other news, I call bullshit. Fusion is annoyingly difficult to produce, and (as mentioned above) is currently one of the least viable modes of energy production, right behind the hamster wheel. Somehow I doubt that a natural disaster might "accidentally" produce nuclear fusion.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Fusion has already existed, you idiot. This isn't anything new. The only reason we don't drive fusion-powered cars is because it wasn't the mythical magical power source the Cold War era thinkers thought it would be. It takes more energy to initiate fusion than we get out of it.

In other news, I call bullshit. Fusion is annoyingly difficult to produce, and (as mentioned above) is currently one of the least viable modes of energy production, right behind the hamster wheel. Somehow I doubt that a natural disaster might "accidentally" produce nuclear fusion.

Nah, we can make it work pretty effectively, the trouble is using it without destroying its casing and the surrounding city. This has been exploited to make Nukes (Hydrogen Bombs). In order to contain it effectively and draw energy, incredibly complex containment systems have to be engineered. This is why we lose energy in every controlled fusion reaction.

 

[espada1311]

I must say, this is a really interesting thought. Would you be willing to sacrifice thousands of lives, and make millions suffer, if it meant that you could find a way to improve mankind's technology by leaps and bounds. Like in this case, would you say the death and damage the earthquake and tsunami caused, be worth the possible discoveries we can make in nuclear fusion?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I must say, this is a really interesting thought. Would you be willing to sacrifice thousands of lives, and make millions suffer, if it meant that you could find a way to improve mankind's technology by leaps and bounds. Like in this case, would you say the death and damage the earthquake and tsunami caused, be worth the possible discoveries we can make in nuclear fusion?

That's one way of putting it.

But, on the other hand, would you scrap NASA, and given all the funding to humanitarian efforts?

Ok, maybe NASA doesn't do anything exciting now, but should Kennedy have said "Fuck going to the moon, kids are dying in Africa?"

OT: Anyone else wonder if when they say "fusion", they meant "machinery has melted together in a big lump" or something, and it got lost in translation?

 

[espada1311]

I must say, this is a really interesting thought. Would you be willing to sacrifice thousands of lives, and make millions suffer, if it meant that you could find a way to improve mankind's technology by leaps and bounds. Like in this case, would you say the death and damage the earthquake and tsunami caused, be worth the possible discoveries we can make in nuclear fusion?

That's one way of putting it.

But, on the other hand, would you scrap NASA, and given all the funding to humanitarian efforts?

Ok, maybe NASA doesn't do exciting now, but should Kennedy have said "Fuck going to the moon, kids are dying in Africa?"

But the thing is, are you willing to have that on your conscience? You are personally responsible for the deaths of all those people, can the destruction of so many homes, lives, families, friends, and everything of the like, can you honestly justify to yourself that you killed all of them, so you can make the lives of everyone else better? If so, how can you choose these lives? what gives the rest of us the right to live, over them? what makes us so special?

 

[beniki]

I must say, this is a really interesting thought. Would you be willing to sacrifice thousands of lives, and make millions suffer, if it meant that you could find a way to improve mankind's technology by leaps and bounds. Like in this case, would you say the death and damage the earthquake and tsunami caused, be worth the possible discoveries we can make in nuclear fusion?

That's one way of putting it.

But, on the other hand, would you scrap NASA, and given all the funding to humanitarian efforts?

Ok, maybe NASA doesn't do anything exciting now, but should Kennedy have said "Fuck going to the moon, kids are dying in Africa?"

OT: Anyone else wonder if when they say "fusion", they meant "machinery has melted together in a big lump" or something, and it got lost in translation?

Yeah, I'm guessing it's actually a typo, and should be 'fusion OF 2 reactors'.

I'm particularly sceptical, since the BBC is reporting mass panic in Tokyo. I'm living there right now, and everyone's just going about a normal day. I'm going to work tomorrow.

Hell, I was still working 10 mins after the quake.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm particularly sceptical, since the BBC is reporting mass panic in Tokyo. I'm living there right now, and everyone's just going about a normal day.

Hmmm...that might work if mass panic was normal for Tokyo, I guess, but it seems unlikely.

But the thing is, are you willing to have that on your conscience? You are personally responsible for the deaths of all those people, can the destruction of so many homes, lives, families, friends, and everything of the like, can you honestly justify to yourself that you killed all of them, so you can make the lives of everyone else better? If so, how can you choose these lives? what gives the rest of us the right to live, over them? what makes us so special?

We have the right to comfortable existence because we live in a nicer country. I happened to have been born in the right place, is all. Those who are suffering are far away and I don't see them suffer, so I have no reason to care, is how the thinking goes. An extension of that sort of thinking is responsible for a fair few of the world's political problems.

But, is it any different by condemn people to death due to apathy? We all could be doing more to help. We all could stop buying games and DVDs, and give the money to feed starving kids...but we won't, we prefer them to die (as long as we don't have to see it) and keep our shiny things. Which, is on the face of it, terrible, but then it's how our culture has developed...art has no practical use, takes alot of resources, but is essential, for some reason nobody can explain.

 

[StormShaun]

Then began Gundam Seed.....but to be serious I want it to become better

 

[Itsthatguy]

Fusion has already existed, you idiot. This isn't anything new. The only reason we don't drive fusion-powered cars is because it wasn't the mythical magical power source the Cold War era thinkers thought it would be. It takes more energy to initiate fusion than we get out of it.

In other news, I call bullshit. Fusion is annoyingly difficult to produce, and (as mentioned above) is currently one of the least viable modes of energy production, right behind the hamster wheel. Somehow I doubt that a natural disaster might "accidentally" produce nuclear fusion.

Nah, we can make it work pretty effectively, the trouble is using it without destroying its casing and the surrounding city. This has been exploited to make Nukes (Hydrogen Bombs). In order to contain it effectively and draw energy, incredibly complex containment systems have to be engineered. This is why we lose energy in every controlled fusion reaction.

Pretty much this

Just to add, Nuclear fusion needs temperatures of several million degrees celcius (hence the need for containment). There is no way that this could happen in a fission reactor, which would only handle temperatures in the low thousands. Even a full scale meltdown would only result in temperatures in the thousands.

#0419: Possible fusion in two reactors - AFP, quoting government

Somebody screwed up when they put that out

 

[Lacsapix]

Fusion already existed in the Russian TOKAMAK but it consumed more energy then it produced.
A new Fusion reactor called Iter is taking the first step into commercial energy in 20 years.
F**k all the Solarpanals and Windmills, Fusion is going to be the future.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

didn't the zombie survival guide mention japan having a nuclear meltdown?