[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: [cdn-nucl-l] " Teen creates fusion in his Oakland Township home "
Even if ITER reaches its goals, it will still be a long way from
producing useful energy that makes human lives (other than those of
the contractors directly associated with the project) measurably better.
I will not take the bet, but I do wonder - why bother?
(I know, not very scientific of me.)
On Nov 22, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Adam McLean wrote:
> Good grief, Jaro. The sun fuses atoms to produce energy. Fusion
> involving D and T fuse atoms to produce energy. Taking it any
> further than
> that is expecting far more than one would ever realistically hope
> from the
> Do articles on fission mention that only ½ the energy produced by
> comes from fission of U, and the rest from Pu? No. Nor would you
> expect them to be that accurate.
> Re. cost, sure, $1,000 for 1.0E+06 neutrons/sec is cheap. The DIII-
> D fusion
> reactor costs $500,000,000 and regularly makes 1.0E16 n/s. ITER will
> produce ~1.0E20 n/s for $5,000,000,000 (note, the $12.8 billion
> figure is a
> full lifecycle cost including construction, operation for 20 years,
> The primary goals of ITER are to produce 400 MWth on 40 MW of input
> Q=10 for steady periods of up to 500 seconds, and Q=5 for >1,000
> These are described in detail here:
> The 'Fusor', while an outstanding science project, and terrific as
> a neutron
> source and platform for basic plasma science, will never, ever be
> useful for
> power production.
> I believe ITER will reach its goals. I believe that enough to
> offer a bet
> of $1 to anyone that doubts that they'll be met within ITER's
> lifetime. Takers? Jaro? :)
> From: email@example.com.McMaster.CA
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 6:03 AM
> To: Multiple (E-mail)
> Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] " Teen creates fusion in his Oakland Township
> home "
> At least the kid's project cost was a bit more reasonable than the
> billion dollar ITER reactor at Cadarache in southern France.
> And, mercifully, the article avoids making the endlessly repeated
> claim that its the "energy source of the sun."
> If that were the case, they wouldn't need hundred-million-degree
> temperatures, and they wouldn't need deuterium or tritium.
> Of course admitting that its really the energy source of hydrogen
> doesn't sound nearly as attractive to politicians, the media, and the
> With this kind of hyperbole, we could also claim that, because fission
> reactions are *nuclear*, its also " the power of the Sun and the
> Guess we just lack the requisite PR finesse :O)
> cdn-nucl-l mailing list