Re: Robot Violinist

On Nov 18, 6:17 pm, The Phantom Piper <phantompi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Nov 18, 2:13 pm, The Phantom Piper <ThePhantomPi...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:> On Nov 17, 1:02 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

He has no answer to the question 'What energy source do
we use until the magical Fusion power is up and running"

What part of:

"We have enough carbon-based fuels to last until Fusion is
 commercially feasible, *and* we have the technology and
 the Political and Economic tools to make it much Cleaner
 than it is at present; the only question is: will the Rightards
 allow for the expence of implementing such programmes?"

The so-called Rightards are more than happy to use fossil fuels. Will
the consumer be prepared to pay for it?
Next time you hear of some old lady dying of the cold in a Glasgow
flat you may think the sacrifice is too great for a theory that is
unproven. Now - no more tantrums there's a good twat.

The Phantom Pidler

You see it took me 5 secs to fins a rebuttal and I'm not even
interested..


If nuclear fusion were ever developed commercially, radioactive
discharges would increase considerably, since the core of each
commercial fusion reactor would contain about 4 x 1018 Bq (~100
million curies) of radioactive tritium as estimated by Coyle and
Ikrent [Coyle 1978, Ikrent 1976]. The number of becquerels is 4 with
18 zeroes after it: it is an extremely large amount of tritium. Even
if only 0.01% of this inventory were lost each year, this would amount
to 400 TBq (terabecquerel or million million Bq) of tritium per annum,
ie more than the amount currently released to air annually from all of
the UK's nuclear reactors or total releases from all of the 34 French
900 MW reactors combined. This estimate is similar to Feinendegen's
estimate (1980) that 110 TBq of tritium would be released per year
into the environment in the form of "routine" discharges, for every
1,000 MW of future fusion capacity (or more than 10 times the average
amount released by a French 900 MW reactor).

In addition to the hazard of radioactive tritium is the lithium in
fusion reactors. Should there be an explosion (recall the vast amounts
of energy which would be constrained in these reactors), the
consequent fire would result in the lithium catching fire. Lithium is
exceedingly flammable and burns with great intensity, so it can be
expected that a substantial fraction of the reactor inventory of
tritium would be released. This would have a truly catastrophic effect
on the area downwind from any fusion reactor. Luykx [Luykx 1986] and
Coyle have estimated that these "accidental" releases could add a
further 3.7 x 10 18 Bq of tritium being discharged per year on average
if a large number of reactors were built. These estimates are by
authoritative fusion scientists and they are worryingly high, but
there has apparently been no refutation of these estimates in the
scientific media.

Although these references are from the 1970s and 1980s, their age is
immaterial. They indicate that, during previous pushes for fusion
power in those decades, a number of scientists were so concerned about
the dangers of fusion they put their careers on the line to say so.
With the latest calls for fusion, we should recall their concerns and
objections, and indeed their courage.

_______________________

*Ian Fairlie is an independent consultant specialising in radiation
biology. The UK government has appointed him Scientific Secretary of
CERRIE (Committee for the Evaluation of Radiation Risks of Internal
Emitters). Here he expresses his personal opinion.

References:

1. Coyle, P., "Laser Fusion: Status, Future and Tritium Control" in
“Behaviour of Tritium in the Environment”, Proceedings of a Symposium
in San Francisco , IAEA and NEA (OECD), October 1978
2. EDF 2003, http://nucleaire.edf.fr/English/informer/chiffres/fs_chif01..html
3. Ikrent, D. et al., "On the Safety of Tokamak-type, Central
Station Fusion Power Reactors", Nuclear Engineering Design, vol 39, p.
215, 1976
4. Feinendegen, L. et al., "Radiation Problems in Fusion Energy
Production", Radiat. Environ. Biophys. vol 18, pp. 157 to 183. 1980
5. Luykx, F. and Fraser, G., "Tritium Releases from Nuclear Power
Plants and Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plants" Radiat Prot. Dos vol 16
(1-2), pp. 31-36. 1986
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scottish teacher encourages pupils to use "unreliable" Wikipedia
    ... I have posted a rebuttal before to this Fusion stuff - ... it is an extremely large amount of tritium. ... 900 MW reactors combined. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Helium-3 Article in USA Today
    ... >facilitates commercial fusion power plants. ... ITER does not explore the operating ... >reactors are likely to. ... Yet elsewhere you insist we have mature designs with a high ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Article: Nuclear fusion plasma problem tackled
    ... well above what is energy positive. ... energy positive fusion plant in the next 200 years. ... Where do you think the neutrons go? ... I suggest investigating molten salt reactors for a more realistic ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Has Asimovs works failed the test of time?
    ... already achieved controlled nuclear fusion, ... ITER, which is the Next Big Thing in research fusion reactors, is only ... there's a few years worth of operational experience on ITER, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Slightly_OT:_400,000,000=B0C!?=
    ... subsequent fusion of deuterium with tritium, ... neutrons are produced in the fusion reactions to produce further ... Why is the sun's core so much ... reaction is making more of that good stuff. ...
    (talk.origins)