In Brief
- The fusion of hydrogen isotopes is expected to soon emit more energy than is required to make the particles fuse together—a critical milestone in the many-decade quest for fusion energy.
- If this excess energy could be harnessed, it could form the basis for a revolutionary power plant.
- Yet scientists are now uncovering serious engineering challenges that could forestall the construction of such a plant for years to come.
Ignition is close now. Within a year or two the 192 laser beams at the National Ignition Facility (NIF)—the world’s largest and most powerful laser system, a 13-year, $4-billion enterprise—will focus their energy onto a pellet no bigger than a peppercorn. Energy from the laser beams will crush the pellet’s core with such force that the hydrogen isotopes inside will fuse together and release energy, an H-bomb in miniature.
The trick has been tried before—and with success. But every time scientists have fused together these isotopes, they have had to pump far more energy into the lasers than the reaction spat out. This time the ledger will flip. The boom at the pellet’s center will release more energy than the lasers squeezed in, a switch more important than mere accounting would suggest. In theory, this excess energy could be collected and made to run a power plant. Its fuel would be materials found in ordinary seawater; its emissions—both atmospheric and nuclear—would be zero. It would be like capturing a star to run the machines of the earth. It would feed humanity’s endless thirst for energy, and it would do so forever.
This article was originally published with the title Fusion's False Dawn.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
33 Comments
Add CommentITER is an ill-conceived boondoggle. My own belief is that it was specifically developed as a way to DELAY NUCLEAR FUSION, by using the standard bait-and-switch scam, that fossil fuel interests have been using with remarkable success for the past 10 yrs. Create this high hype, extreme expense, very long term project to detract expertise, materials and capital away from much more viable projects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole ITER project itself was modeled after the International Space Station boondoggle. For the price of that bureaucratic nightmare, we could have a permanent colony on the Moon, right now. The ITER mega-international-bureaucracy, managed by the incompetent U.N. agency - the IAEA, spent 5 years arguing about where to even build the facility. Rumor is that a major part of ITER's budget goes to expensive, lavish seminars in exotic locations. If the X-Prize for private spacecraft, used the ITER / Space Station scheme, it would have cost at least $10 billion to get a successful launch rather than the $10 million that ultimately went to Burt Ruttans company
Much better to have smaller, dedicated national teams, or fund private development efforts. Meanwhile, Fusion projects that could yield success in years, for millions not billions, and have a real potential to QUICKLY replace fossil fuels are getting zip to a couple million in financing. Some good examples:
Bussard's Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion, Plasma Focus Fusion, Tri-Alpha Energy's Aneutronic Colliding Beam Fusion, Spherical Plasma Fusion, General Fusion's shockwave Fusion, Reversed Field Pinch fusion, Winterberg Super Marx Deuterium Fusion, Fission/Fusion Hybrid concepts, Cold Fusion and Anti-matter & Muon Catalyzed Fusion.
The important thing to know about small, cheap, fast Nuclear Fusion, the ENERGY ESTABLISHMENT DOESN'T WANT IT!
Just imagine what could be done for the $7B a year the USA spends on nutty, energy negative, environmentally destructive Corn Ethanol. Or the $10B or more the World is going to blow on wacky, completely impractical Clean Coal with CCS. Some good links on potential Fusion Power solutions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert Bussard's Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion:
http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2009/01/easy-low-cost-no-radiation-fusion.html
Focus Fusion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVif4hUAJ8c
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1518007279479871760&q=Google+tech+talks+lerner&pr=goog-sl
Super Marx Deuterium & Laser Fusion-Fission Hybrid:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/winterberg-compares-super-marx.html
Reversed Field Pinch Fusion:
http://www.sciencecodex.com/upping_the_power_triggers_an_ordered_helical_plasma
General Fusion (Shockwave Fusion):
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/general-fusion-will-leverage-computer.html
DARPA's Handheld Nuclear Fusion Reactor:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/darpas-handheld-nuclear-fusion-reactor/
Muon Catalyzed Fusion:
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2009/10/05/the-new-cold-fusion/
Cold Fusion:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/neutron-tracks-detected-in-cold-fusion.html
Kolic Spherical Plasma Fusion:
http://www.prometheus2.net/
Tri-Alpha Energy's Aneutronic Colliding Beam Fusion:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/06/tri-alpha-energy-raises-40-million-in.html
Similar to Tri-Alpha, Helion Energy:
http://www.helionenergy.com/
Excellent summary on the future of Commercial Fusion Energy:
http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/s2005/page_fusion051.pdf
Magnificent article!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI might add that he missed the significant breakthroughs accopmplished by commercial efforts of KMS Industries, General Electric, Owens Corning glass, and others during the early 1970's. Although spending a year in disbelief, Lawrence Livermore finally understood and these developments led to their construction of Shiva. In the overall context however this was relatively minor compared to what occurred later. Probably this was too much detail to be included in such a comprehenive article. Good work, Mr. Moyer.
I favor chemically augmented inertial confinement fusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA pellet would be constructed with a ceramic layer, a layer of explosive, and a core of a hydrogen isotope and heavy metal foam.
The pellet explosive would be ignited by elctromagnetic radiation, probably a laser, to the ceramic would need to be as transparent as possible to the wavelength of the laser.
The metal should be as inert as possible so as to not interact chemically with the hydrogen isotope. It should also have as low a melting point as possible.
When the explosive ignites the metal should melt. Sound waves in the metal resulting from the explosion and focused by the shape of the pellet would multiply the pressure and temperature inside the bubble of hydrogen isotopes in the foam.
I do not believe ITER, NIF, HiPER, and other extremely expensive fusion experiements, based on laser, microwaves, and magnetic compression, will surpass the breakeven point producing more energy than they consume. I think a better way of harnessing nuclear fusion is using electrostatic acceleration, hence a working reactor can be technically feasible. There is a well-conceived electrostatic fusion device that I believe have much more chance of over passing the breakeven point producing cleaner and safer electric power without neutron emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.crossfirefusor.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/overview.html
Thanks for the link on the crossfirefusor. It is up to us readers to supply info on Fusion, since the Shell Oil editors of Sci-Am have a virtual news blackout on REALISTIC fusion technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is absolutely outrageous, considering the magnitude of the potential Global Warming Catastrophe, the coming Peak Oil crisis and Dire Potable Water shortages, that 10's of billions are not being spent on the practical, fast route to fusion devices I mentioned in my list. Instead 100's of billions are being spent on NUTTY SCAMS like Corn Ethanol, Wind & Solar Power and Clean Coal.
NIF is a joke as a commercial fusion reactor. In spite of the phony press releases, it is a well known that NIF is funded for Weapons Research - not for commercial fusion power. Probably the main objective of the NIF is to develop pure fusion weapons, which are looking more & more feasible. Likely route will be an explosively pumped flux compression generator (EPFCG) driving a Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF) weapon. It is believed a rudimentary low yield weapon could be built already.
Cold fusion (the Fleischmann-Pons effect) is far closer to being a practical source of energy than magnetic or inertial confinement fusion. In the mid-1990s, cold fusion achieved self-sustaining, fully ignited reactions at over 100 W, with power density and temperatures equivalent to a fission reactor core. Osaka Nat. U., Kobe Nat. U. and the Naval Research Laboratory have recently demonstrated stable, fully ignited reactions with no input that last for weeks (Phys. Lett. A, 2009. 273(35): p. 3109-3112.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency recently recommended increased funding for cold fusion. See:
Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance DIA-08-0911-003, 13 November 2009
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf
Over a thousand mainstream, peer-reviewed journal articles about cold fusion have been published, but the only reference to cold fusion in this Sci. Am. article was the Seife book, which does not contain a single reference to or fact from this literature. The Sci. Am. attitude toward cold fusion, and the fact that it continues to ignore this vital research, is outrageous.
No surprises here. A mathematical constant of the universe is that fusion power is n+20 years distant where n is the current date.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuys, I don't think you all got the point of this article. The point was that NO form of fusion may be practical, period. The reasons they are citing are fundamental, not related to mechanism of fusion. It doesn't matter if its inertial confinement, magnetic confinement, electrostatics, etc. If what these people are saying is true then ECONOMICAL use of fusion is simply out, or it is at least relegated possibly to centuries in the future when perhaps technology yet undreamed of might exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo everything with your mind(soul) you pay very tiny energy,so we need not to search super energy at all.You need any vehicle to meet if you come to me with you soul. MEDITATION is for all. NIRVANA.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople need clean air, clean water, and clean food to live. Look at how badly we have to sacrifice those things, and the lengths we have to go in this article, to fulfill all the other "needs" we tell each other we have. Perhaps fusion weapons are a blessing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis reply is from "one-who-was-there". You are correct, it hasn't happened for over 4 decades now. But it is very worthwhile pursuing because: The oil/energy crisis GOES AWAY FOREVER. So does high voltage tramsmission lines, since every city will have it's own facility. And as the article states, the ocean becomes our fuel/energy source. Perhaps you or I may never see it, but men should dream else we do not progress. I don't believe there are fundamental limits. What has been happening all this time is that we simply are not smart enough yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is true only for inertial confinement. For magnetic confinement the economical lot size is ONE. It will probably be located in Chicago and back will come the transmission lines!
I've never liked fusion, when simple satellites in space with solar panels could beam down electricity for the world cheaply. the role of magnetism is disputed in stars, and few realize to get something to work requires correctly understanding what happens. Radiation and leaks from fusion plants, unproven science, and wasted taxpayer dollars explain everything. Big business want the poor to pay for electricity forever. solar energy already works, is getting cheaper and better. Satellites are cheaper to send up, look at all the cel phones. Stop the scams on fusion, and lets get cheap electricity the easiest, safest, fastest possible way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.quantauniverse.com
"...No surprises here. A mathematical constant of the universe is that fusion power is n+20 years distant where n is the current date..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is an idiotic statement. Some fellow, drinking a few too many beers, made some mickey-mouse statement, and you hold it as some gospel, religious pronouncement. How many times have some jerk said Solar will power the World and Wind ( 40 yrs ago). Like a complex problem as fusion is - can be solved by spending a few hundred million per year, 99% of it on impractical technologies. But $7B per year on proven Energy Negative Corn Ethanol - an NUTTY SCAM - nor problem there.
"...Guys, I don't think you all got the point of this article. The point was that NO form of fusion may be practical, period. The reasons they are citing are fundamental, not related to mechanism of fusion..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is an absurd, ridiculous statement. You don't have a clue. Why don't you read the links I provided on the work really smart people, like Robert Bussard have done. He gave his life, dedicated to clean, cheap energy to SAVE OUR WORLD, struggling with funding that the Solar, Coal, Wind, Oil and NG crowd would consider coffee money, or pocket change. Your comment is insulting, and completely without any foundation whatsoever.
Solar Energy is a Sick Joke and a Scam. Peter Lang does a thorough analysis of the cost of supplying all of Australia (one of the best locations on Earth) with Solar Energy. Conclusion:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar PV with Pumped Hydro storage: $2,800 billion
Solar PV with NaS battery storage: $4,600 billion
Solar Thermal with storage: $4,400 billion
Nuclear Power: $120 billion
Just the cost of the Power Transmission Trunk lines (500kv AC ) to supply Australia with Wind & Solar Energy is $180 billion -- 50% MORE THAN THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR OPTION!!
CO2 emissions for all of Australia for 30 days:
Solar PV: 71 million tonnes
Coal: 219 million tonnes
Coal with CCS: 33 million tonnes
Nuclear: 3.3 million tonnes
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/10/solar-realities-and-transmission-costs-addendum/
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lang_solar_realities_v2.pdf
Someone needs a high- paying job to be able to tell the world after a long time: "So, now we know for sure that it does not work for practical purposes....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, it would be fantastic if people who don't have even the slightest clue about the physics behind fusion could just not share their uniformed opinion with everyone; if you don't have something smart to say don't say anything at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, saying that fusion is a waste of time and resources is a great example of myopia. Eventually fossil fuels will run out, and despite their ubiquitous moniker, green energies are anything but and at their current efficiencies, could never supply the base electric load we need. Fission will be a huge part of our future infrastructure but has it's obvious waste dilemas. Fusion is the end-game of our energy needs, it is the reason our planet has life and the only method with which we can continue to sustain it.
Finally, while I fully support all paths of research into energy development, specifically those into fusion, we must be aware that some methods have little applicability to our needs. Methods such as inertial confinement offer a great deal of insight into the physics of fusion, but pose one major problem: they are not effective at heating water. Despite the huge technological strides necessary to produce fusion, we are still just boiling water to turn a turbine, and the structural geometries necessary for IC methods aren't very conducive to this.
In any case, it is of the utmost importance that all energy research, beit fossil nuclear or other, presses on so that humanity may as well.
@frgough, you really need to find new material. You've been beating that joke to death with every technology article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow come anytime when there is an article about fusion reactors it leaves out the work being done by EMC2 on the polywell fusion reactor? While the ITER & NIF are costing billions of dollars with schedules in the decades the small team stared by the late Dr. Bussard is reporting promising results at a much accelerated pace and at 1/100 the cost. The editors of this periodical should give equal press to credible promising work regardless of the complexity and cost of the project. Even if Polywells path to economical fusion turns out to be another dead end, I and may others would like to follow the progress of this endevor in this great magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. Look into polywell fusion you might just get excited about the future
How come anytime when there is an article about fusion reactors it leaves out the work being done by EMC2 on the polywell fusion reactor? While the ITER & NIF are costing billions of dollars with schedules in the decades the small team stared by the late Dr. Bussard is reporting promising results at a much accelerated pace and at 1/100 the cost. The editors of this periodical should give equal press to credible promising work regardless of the complexity and cost of the project. Even if Polywells path to economical fusion turns out to be another dead end, I and may others would like to follow the progress of this endeavor in this great magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. Look into polywell fusion you might just get excited about the future
"...How come anytime when there is an article about fusion reactors it leaves out the work being done by EMC2 on the polywell fusion reactor..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou would have to talk to Shell Oil about that and the editors of SCIAM, who are their stooges.
This is yet another example of the typical garbage put out by SA. Go back to grade school and learn how to research a topic! This is a bunch of garbage fear mongering without any basis in fact. For example, you state that fusion energy can only be extracted from fast neutrons, which is NOT TRUE. You have used your juvenile understanding of modern fusion technology to attempt to SCARE people away from the prospects of a fusion reactor. In fact, the residual radiation output of a D-T reactor is much lower than a fission reactor, and once we fix the engineering problem involving electron cooling and plasma instability, we will have working reactors that generate substantial quantities of energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is the equivalent of an article warning about the risks of growing antibiotics, because "MOLD can be dangerous, and you won't really know what you're going to get." Even a brief review of wikipedia articles is more informative that your drivel. Go back to gradeschool!
I haven't seen so much misinformation & disinformation as on this blog, & in the article, since the last time I listened to Coast To Coast. And speaking of Coast To Coast, Charles Seife is one of its featured guests, and when I saw the glowing endorsement the SA article gave to his book, I knew this was going to end badly. Sometimes the little boy who says the emporer has no clothes is just being a big-mouthed brat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a conspicuous lack of numbers in this article--did anyone notice that? HOW MUCH of a problem is embrittlement of blanket materials by neutrons? HOW LONG will they last? HOW EFFICIENTLY can one of these plants convert neutron energy into electric power? The one place I remember them getting into numbers, it was numbers like 1, 2, 6, 7, in tritium production. By their own description, one neutron from the plasma could generate as many as TWO tritium ions. Yet they say that every single neutron has to generate a tritium ion, or "the reaction shuts down." That's absurd, and while there might be a problem producing enough tritium, you couldn't deduce it from what they said.
All that said, I do have serious doubts that ICF will ever, ever produce usable fusion power, and it's for a reason not even mentioned. Once you set off a pellet with a laser blast, you have debris everywhere, and you no longer have a hard vacuum. The next time you fire those lasers, how are you ever going to get all the energy onto the next pellet? That is, unless you spend a long time, maybe hours, sucking everything out to restore the vacuum. Am I missing something? IAC it wasn't even discussed.
WRT energy options: Wind and solar are both realistic options. I don't see any reason why they can't both be abundant and cheap in a fairly short time--sooner for wind, a little later but eventually much more dominant for solar. Solar beamed from space should probably be given a shot, though I doubt if it can ever be cost-reduced fast enough to compete with solar on the ground. IAC wind and solar are NOT scams--that would be ethanol, and to a fair extent hydrogen as well. Anyway, the big problem is not the energy sources, it's the need for light, cheap energy storage. Even with a fusion breakthrough, you still have to get the energy onto vehicles. And the one thing they are right about in the article is that mating constant nuclear production (fission or fusion) to the variable grid IS a problem. Better energy storage is the SOLUTION. We are NOWHERE NEAR theoretical limits in kwh per kg for energy storage. MAJOR room for improvement there.
I haven't seen so much misinformation & disinformation as on this blog, & in the article, since the last time I listened to Coast To Coast. And speaking of Coast To Coast, Charles Seife is one of its featured guests, and when I saw the glowing endorsement the SA article gave to his book, I knew this was going to end badly. Sometimes the little boy who says the emporer has no clothes is just being a big-mouthed brat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a conspicuous lack of numbers in this article--did anyone notice that? HOW MUCH of a problem is embrittlement of blanket materials by neutrons? HOW LONG will they last? HOW EFFICIENTLY can one of these plants convert neutron energy into electric power? The one place I remember them getting into numbers, it was numbers like 1, 2, 6, 7, in tritium production. By their own description, one neutron from the plasma could generate as many as TWO tritium ions. Yet they say that every single neutron has to generate a tritium ion, or "the reaction shuts down." That's absurd, and while there might be a problem producing enough tritium, you couldn't deduce it from what they said.
All that said, I do have serious doubts that ICF will ever, ever produce usable fusion power, and it's for a reason not even mentioned. Once you set off a pellet with a laser blast, you have debris everywhere, and you no longer have a hard vacuum. The next time you fire those lasers, how are you ever going to get all the energy onto the next pellet? That is, unless you spend a long time, maybe hours, sucking everything out to restore the vacuum. Am I missing something? IAC it wasn't even discussed.
WRT energy options: Wind and solar are both realistic options. I don't see any reason why they can't both be abundant and cheap in a fairly short time--sooner for wind, a little later but eventually much more dominant for solar. Solar beamed from space should probably be given a shot, though I doubt if it can ever be cost-reduced fast enough to compete with solar on the ground. IAC wind and solar are NOT scams--that would be ethanol, and to a fair extent hydrogen as well. Anyway, the big problem is not the energy sources, it's the need for light, cheap energy storage. Even with a fusion breakthrough, you still have to get the energy onto vehicles. And the one thing they are right about in the article is that mating constant nuclear production (fission or fusion) to the variable grid IS a problem. Better energy storage is the SOLUTION. We are NOWHERE NEAR theoretical limits in kwh per kg for energy storage. MAJOR room for improvement there.
Fusion was over glorified and believed safe, because it was compared to fission in atomic bombs. Even microwave ovens boil water in tissues, and are not good to be near or look at. nobody wants to live near a fusion plant that makes clean safe energy, it is just as dangerous as a fission plant installed with extra lead and safety shielding to absorb the radiation. This fooled the public into thinking fusion was clean and safe. How safe is the sun, without the earth's atmosphere? No tests of fusion emissions have ever been tested on humans. Fusion will die and those who still say it will work are only getting paid to do a job and believe what they are told.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...nobody wants to live near a fusion plant that makes clean safe energy, it is just as dangerous as a fission plant…"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is an idiotic statement. Do you know ANYTHING about radiation? It is trivially easy to measure radiation unlike 99% of the deadly chemicals that are common in industry. Whereas living near a Fusion power plant will UNQUESTIONABLY be totally safe and myself like MOST PEOPLE ON EARTH will be quite happy to do so. Living near your favorite Coal Dirt Burner or NG Power plant - ain’t so safe. Coal emissions KILL 30,000 Americans every year and NG explosions have killed thousands - 6 just last month. And Coal releases 100X the radiation to the environment. And NG also releases much more radiation to the environment than Nuclear Power Plants.
Here's some actual facts about radiation, not the Oil & Coal Lobby disinformation you expunge.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
The largest study ever of Radiation effects, absolutely Rock Solid, not only fails to identify any Radiation Health risks, but shows clear evidence of Radiation Hormesis - the beneficial effects of Low Dose Radiation:
"...The NSWS compared three cohorts: a high-dose cohort of 27,872 nuclear workers, a low dose cohort of 10,348 workers, and a control cohort of 32,510 unexposed shipyard workers. The cohorts were matched by ages and job categories. Although the NSWS was designed to search for adverse effects of occupational low dose-rate gamma radiation, few risks were found. The high-dose workers demonstrated significantly lower circulatory, respiratory, and all-cause mortality than did unexposed workers. Mortality from all cancers combined was also lower in the exposed cohort...."
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-NSWS-shipyard.pdf
Bernie Cohen explains low level radiation and radiation hormesis - a proven fact:
http://mailman.mcmaster.ca/mailman/private/cdn-nucl-l/0107.gz/msg00006.html
Radiation Hormesis:
http://biomedx.com/files/radrock.pdf
Mondo Sinistro, you are wrong about Solar and Wind Energy. Except for minor niche applications, they are SCAMS and the only reason they are getting 100's of billions of dollars of funding is because they are part of Fossil Fuel Interests Bait-And-Switch campaign to dupe people into impractical technology that sounds wonderful, until you work the numbers. End result, we're still stuck with the same old fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpain spent $US26.4B on its Solar power - for a miserable 450 MW average output or an ASTOUNDING $58,670 PER KW - with No Storage!! With Nuclear coming in at $1 to $5k per kw avg. for 24/7 rain or shine, summer or winter power.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125193815050081615.html
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2009/08/spanish-solar-power-market-crashes.html
The biggest Wind Project in the USA, using El-cheapo Chinese Wind Turbines works out to $13.5k per avg kw, which still requires a shadowing NG GHG belcher to supply 70% of the NG/Wind system energy. How is that Green?
Wind DOES NOT SIGNICANTLY REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS. See:
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/
And Peter Lang shows that the CO2 AVOIDANCE COSTS OF WIND, including necessary backup are $830 to $1149 per tonne CO2 avoided, vs Nuclear at $22 per tonne CO2 avoided, and just using Close Cycle Gas Turbines, Nix the Wind is $33 per tonne CO2 avoided - compared with a standard Black Coal Power plant. So who needs Wind?
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/lang-wind-power-co2-emissions.pdf
And actually Nuclear has no problem with Load Following to the normal daily profile. It is not done in the USA because it is most economical to run Nuclear full out 24/7. But France with it's 80% Nuclear generation MUST and does do Load Following.
NONE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdwdb, you are the one who is wrong on wind and solar. All you have done to support your claim is to fob off a bunch of links. If the logic therein is so persuasive, then you should be able to summarize it here and make your case. The fact is that solar and wind, being capital-intensive sources, are following a classic market penetration curve--the more units are sold, the more the cost comes down. Solar is thus following an exponential growth curve, and will continue to do so until its cost is very low. This is simply because there are no materials supply constraints sufficient to hem in its growth. Eventually it may be constrained by the cost of energy storage, and that's one reason why it is important to be working on that side of things. (The other big reason being that it's essential to getting that renewable energy into vehicles. But that, too, is cost-reducible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW I didn't say nuclear couldn't load-follow at all, but it is more difficult to do quickly with nuclear, because changing power levels tends to be a delicate matter. Future reactor designs may make this easier, but for now it's a constraint. Keep in mind that France's grid is connected to nearby countries that can help to smooth out supply and demand.
The claims about solar's unworkability are mostly transparently bunk. Even today, you hear people saying that solar would require some absurd proportion of land area, or saying it has yet to deliver any net power. The first is only true in dense localities--which just confirms that eventually storage (and/or a better grid) will be crucial, a problem, but one that is completely solvable. The second is more insidious and misleading: Even if it is, strictly speaking, true (and I'm not sure it is), when you have something that is capital-intensive AND rapidly growing, then you may indeed be putting more energy into it during part of its growth phase than you are getting out. Besides, EROEI is not a good indicator in the early growth phase, when EROEI is not the primary concern for many of the applications (e.g., solar calculators).
BTW I'm not totally anti-nuclear (fission or fusion), but we have to be careful about claims that it can have a renaissance and provide cheap power when it hasn't before. Just because old plants that are long since paid for are providing cheap power is not an indication of the cost of new plants.
It's too bad nuclear scientists can't stop working for the military and can't get off their bomb addiction. The idea bomb theories will produce nuclear power is a fallacy, the mathematics show it won't. The research establishments will fail wasting billions that could actually go towards producing REAL power through nuclear science but what the hey--there will be better bombs won't there? Just the idea of magnetic containment is one of those crackpot ideas that should be shelved along with the crackpot use of control rods in fission. In both fission and fusion no containment no control is needed when properly working. The amount of radiation is minuscule when each is working at high efficiency. Heat is negligible. Its too bad crackpots have control of nuclear but when billions are involved what crackpot wouldn't want it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere seems to be a missing component in the equations: gravity. I didn't see it noted in the article (did I miss it?), but has anyone thought how Earth's gravity affects the instruments or elements in use, or in the reactions? Remember that gases and other matter will react differently without the influence of gravity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat would the same instruments be able to produce if they were made in outer-space?
I agree with much of your concern but the facts are not brought to light about HIF! A real disservice to all. (even Wikipedia omits HIF - it is non-existent!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHIF was first demonstrated to the world in the 50's. Today it is a ripe technology to produce fusion energy ... visit www.fusionpowercorporation.com or follow the 18th Symposium in Germany on August 30 -September 3 for a
presentation on HIF application to generate 20 to 35 GWe at a 100+:1. It is like building a super giant oil field, but it does not diminish production ... !!
YES, fusion is possible today with HIF.