Originally Posted by MDCL

It's nice to know there's a magical pixy fairy out there that grants gum drop wishes...interesting historical note...atomic energy in the 1950s was sold as unlimited clean energy for the future and beyond. There's no free lunch..everything comes with a cost...just because we can't see what the down side of fusion is, doesn't mean there isn't one.

It's also interesting to note that fission energy requires relativley rare and expensive fuel (uranium), whereas fusion requires hydrogen, the most common element in the universe. The product of the fusion reaction is water.

So... most common element = hydrogen, therefore fuel is essentially cost free

Product = water, so it's clean.

Yep... if we could figure it out, it would be the ultimate solution. I don't know if it's my science background or what, but I've always been optimistic about these sorts of things. One thing I do know is that oil won't be around forever, and within our liftetimes we'll be using primarily something else.

Originally Posted by Taunton

It's also interesting to note that fission energy requires relativley rare and expensive fuel (uranium), whereas fusion requires hydrogen, the most common element in the universe. The product of the fusion reaction is water.

So... most common element = hydrogen, therefore fuel is essentially cost free

Product = water, so it's clean.

Yep... if we could figure it out, it would be the ultimate solution. I don't know if it's my science background or what, but I've always been optimistic about these sorts of things. One thing I do know is that oil won't be around forever, and within our liftetimes we'll be using primarily something else.

Uhh, fusion isn't combustion... you have to use heavy hydrogen which turns into helium.

Originally Posted by jhan523

Uhh, fusion isn't combustion... you have to use heavy hydrogen which turns into helium.

Haha yeah, my mistake, I was confusing fusion with the hydrogen fuel cell.

Either way, it's still a great potential fuel source.

Do you know if the problem of starting the fusion reaction has been solved? (if I remember correctly, a fusion reaction requires a huge amount of energy to start, and the only way we know of to generate that energy is a fission reaction)

Originally Posted by Taunton

Haha yeah, my mistake, I was confusing fusion with the hydrogen fuel cell.

Either way, it's still a great potential fuel source.

Do you know if the problem of starting the fusion reaction has been solved? (if I remember correctly, a fusion reaction requires a huge amount of energy to start, and the only way we know of to generate that energy is a fission reaction)

Yes, they made a fusion reaction by focusing a lot of lasers at the material. Not sure if it was successful though. It also took a lot of energy to start it, but a lot of energy can be attained by continuously feeding it.

Not to mention, I don't think we've yet developed any materials that are strong enough to make a fusion reactor out of :p.

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

Not to mention, I don't think we've yet developed any materials that are strong enough to make a fusion reactor out of :p.

There's some interesting stuff on that topic on wikipedia... the choice of materials isn't solved yet, but it's definitely solvable:

The problem is exacerbated because realistic material tests must expose samples to neutron fluxes of a similar level for a similar length of time as those expected in a fusion power plant. Such a neutron source is nearly as complicated and expensive as a fusion reactor itself would be. Proper materials testing will not be possible in ITER, and a proposed materials testing facility, IFMIF, was still at the design stage in 2005.
The material of the plasma facing components (PFC) is a special problem. The PFC do not have to withstand large mechanical loads, so neutron damage is much less of an issue. They do have to withstand extremely large thermal loads, up to 10 MW/m², which is a difficult but solvable problem. Regardless of the material chosen, the heat flux can only be accommodated without melting if the distance from the front surface to the coolant is not more than a centimeter or two. The primary issue is the interaction with the plasma. One can choose either a low-Z material, typified by graphite although for some purposes beryllium might be chosen, or a high-Z material, usually tungsten with molybdenum as a second choice. Use of liquid metals (lithium, gallium, tin) has also been proposed, e.g., by injection of 1-5 mm thick streams flowing at 10 m/s on solid substrates.
If graphite is used, the gross erosion rates due to physical and chemical sputtering would be many meters per year, so one must rely on redeposition of the sputtered material. The location of the redeposition will not exactly coincide with the location of the sputtering, so one is still left with erosion rates that may be prohibitive. An even larger problem is the tritium co-deposited with the redeposited graphite. The tritium inventory in graphite layers and dust in a reactor could quickly build up to many kilograms, representing a waste of resources and a serious radiological hazard in case of an accident. The consensus of the fusion community seems to be that graphite, although a very attractive material for fusion experiments, cannot be the primary PFC material in a commercial reactor.
The sputtering rate of tungsten can be orders of magnitude smaller than that of carbon, and tritium is not so easily incorporated into redeposited tungsten, making this a more attractive choice. On the other hand, tungsten impurities in a plasma are much more damaging than carbon impurities, and self-sputtering of tungsten can be high, so it will be necessary to ensure that the plasma in contact with the tungsten is not too hot (a few tens of eV rather than hundreds of eV). Tungsten also has disadvantages in terms of eddy currents and melting in off-normal events, as well as some radiological issues.

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

Not to mention, I don't think we've yet developed any materials that are strong enough to make a fusion reactor out of :p.

Yeah, not sure how fast fusion it, but we'd probably have to have large holding tanks and a processing plant close by to make deuterium. Tritium is a byproduct.

Meh, I'm sure someone will slap some carbon nano tubes together and solve it. That seems to be the new and upcoming solution to everything these days :p.

Lol

There is also the problem with the tons of helium this is going to produce... what the hell are we going to do with all of it?

Originally Posted by jhan523

what the hell are we going to do with all of it?

Speak with hilarious voices.

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

Speak with hilarious voices.

That doesn't get rid of the helium though :\ But it would be fun ^-^

Originally Posted by jhan523

That doesn't get rid of the helium though :\ But it would be fun ^-^

Build floating cities?

What about Anti Matter? I had a little talk with a visiting lecturer from MIT or it was Caltech or UCLA or something at one of the origins lectures at Mac last year, he reckoned Anti Matter right now as portrayed in Dan Brown is pretty ridiculous, we do not have the means to contain/keep the anti matter that is produced at CERN for more then a few mili mil seconds. Hence even though Angels and Demons shows that humans were able to capture Anti Matter and contain it, we are farr farrr from it!
But that guy was optimistic that we should be able to do so eventually. Because lol I'm pretty cynical on alot of things, but I still believe in human beings ability to progress. I mean we might not have a generation of Einstein's and Newtons anymore but we will eventually have someone who comes up with a way!

But before that happens I have a wierd feeling people are going to fight over natural resources( a mini world war of sorts), although some would argue that in Iraq that is exactly what has happened, USA wanted access to a oil rich country but more importantly to stabilize neighboring countries in the middle east(Saudia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait etc)

EPA Applauds GM Effort, but Says It Cannot Confirm Volt's Claimed 230 MPG


In response to a request from Green Car Advisor seeking clarification and confirmation of General Motors' claim that the Chevrolet Volt extended-range hybrid achieves 230 miles per gallon in city driving using tentative EPA test technology, the agency issued the following statement:

"EPA has not tested a Chevy Volt and therefore cannot confirm the fuel economy values claimed by GM. EPA does applaud GM's commitment to designing and building the car of the future - an American-made car that will save families money, significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create good-paying American jobs. We're proud to see American companies and American workers leading the world in the clean energy innovations that will shape the 21st century economy."

We at Green Car Advisor cannot be certain, but we strongly suspect that the person who wrote that statement was waving an American flag with one hand and holding a humongous slice of apple pie in the other. If the writer had used American in the statement just one more time, he or she surely would have qualified for some type of prize.

But seriously, we're still trying to figure out exactly how GM came to conclude that the Volt will get 230 mpg in city driving. And we're wondering what the automaker will say or do when initial Volt buyers discover - probably, but we're hoping we're wrong - that they aren't achieving anywhere near 230 mpg in city.

Details, details.

Scott Doggett, Contributor



Source


Although I do believe that there is a great future for hybrids, it's going to be a long and slow one.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

What about Anti Matter? I had a little talk with a visiting lecturer from MIT or it was Caltech or UCLA or something at one of the origins lectures at Mac last year, he reckoned Anti Matter right now as portrayed in Dan Brown is pretty ridiculous, we do not have the means to contain/keep the anti matter that is produced at CERN for more then a few mili mil seconds. Hence even though Angels and Demons shows that humans were able to capture Anti Matter and contain it, we are farr farrr from it!
But that guy was optimistic that we should be able to do so eventually. Because lol I'm pretty cynical on alot of things, but I still believe in human beings ability to progress. I mean we might not have a generation of Einstein's and Newtons anymore but we will eventually have someone who comes up with a way!

But before that happens I have a wierd feeling people are going to fight over natural resources( a mini world war of sorts), although some would argue that in Iraq that is exactly what has happened, USA wanted access to a oil rich country but more importantly to stabilize neighboring countries in the middle east(Saudia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait etc)

There isn't even enough money in the world to produce enough anti-matter to blow up the Vatican. You could actually buy the entire world with the amount of money needed to produce that much anti-matter.