 |
|
Zylka
|
|
Well we definitely won't be granting the comedy reactor to Korea
Ha! hha aaa
haaa!
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa111qq
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
One of the first responders to this thread called the initial article biased. In what way did you think it was biased?
Azazel and Imran Siddiqui, fallout is not the result of radioactivity, it's the result of dust and material thrown into the air by a nuclear explosion. No explosion, no fallout, regardless of whether it's fission or fusion power.
Azazel, petroleum will retain increasing value regardless of whatever other energy sources people can harness. It's an incredibly valuable and irreplaceable raw material. Everyone on earth could benefit from a source of cheap, clean power (I'm not suggesting that fusion offers that, though). Russia, with its fairly cold climate, would benefit more than most.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
My impression of the way a fusion reactor is supposed to work is that a tiny bead of hydrogen doped with deuterium and or tritium is introduced into a magnetic field and then is compressed. An array of 20+ lasers are fired at the compressed fuel. The heat of the lasers on the surface of the bead furhter compresses it and also heats it. Hopefully the combination of compression and heat reaches the threshold for fusion. The fused fuel produces alpha, beat and gamma radiation, which are absorbed in the wall of the reactor heating some sort of liquid medium, which then is piped into a turbine where electicity is generated. I think that fuel beads are fed into the reactor one at a time, not as a contigous stream. I don't know how often beads are supposed to be consumed. Is it one/minute, one/second, or one/microsecond? I'm not certain what is meant by a "continuous, sustained" operation. Maybe in the past experimental reactors have simply consumed one or two fuel beads/ experiment, then measured the yield. Maybe what is unique about this experiment is that they have figured out a way to produce a continuous supply of fuel beads.
Fusion reactors are inherently safer than fission reactors because there is very little radioactive fuel, and the radiation producing reaction is very brief. I suppose it would still be possible for the heat absorbing liquid medium to explode, possibly destroying the plant, but there isn't a lot of resident radiation to be blown into the air. Some scientists have worried that the reactor mass itself might become radioactive over a matter of years due to the continuous bombardment of its metal parts by radiation.
Even if they succeed, and are able to manufacture sufficient numbers of fusion reactors to satisfy the world's need for electircal energy, there will still be plenty of uses for petroleum. I doubt that reactors small enough to power cars and trucks would soon be possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by debeest
One of the first responders to this thread called the initial article biased. In what way did you think it was biased?
|
In the way it specifically notes US reason for backdoor shenanigans - yet doesn't note the whole France, Russia, China thing under same terms. This would be BBC's stance upon Britain's automatic EU based support, regardless of what they might feign outside in "official" talks on the matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zylka
Minds this biased really deserve a swift kick in the ribs and to have their fruity ass hatchbacks driven off a cliff. |
I think you meant H2's.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-12-2003 03:55
if it goes, japan's as good a places as any. they have experience in those things.
|