On the ball Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 What are you saying here, we had fusion reactors but stopped developing them? Or that research into fusion reactors has ended. Either way it's incorrect, research continues, with more money today than ever before. I am saying that 30 years ago we were told fusion reactors would solve all the problems of nuclear power...and we're still waiting...and spending more money today than ever before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I am saying that 30 years ago we were told fusion reactors would solve all the problems of nuclear power...and we're still waiting...and spending Fusion is the future, for sure. It's damn hard to do but it will be worth the billions spent on it many times over. 35g of seawater providing enough electricity to run the average westerners house for a whole year? Yes please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the ball Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Why? Why do we need to develop it quickly? Is it because successive governments have neglected our power generation infrastructure? Is it because 'we're all going to die' from global wombling? Even that green acolyte Moonbat realises we need nuclear. Wind will just not cut it. It isn't reliable (and it's too expensive using pumped storage). We need to develop renewable energies quickly so that we don't have to rely on nuclear power. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who says that wind will solve our energy problems on its own. But alongside solar, tidal, heat pumps, biomass, hydro and most importantly reducing the ammount of energy we use, it's quite possible that renewables could fill the energy gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 We need to develop renewable energies quickly so that we don't have to rely on nuclear power. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who says that wind will solve our energy problems on its own. But alongside solar, tidal, heat pumps, biomass, hydro and most importantly reducing the ammount of energy we use, it's quite possible that renewables could fill the energy gap. Again you are incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Fusion is the future, for sure. It's damn hard to do but it will be worth the billions spent on it many times over. 35g of seawater providing enough electricity to run the average westerners house for a whole year? Yes please. That's assuming we can get it to work, and more importantly we can stably contain it. In terms of an engineering challenge a molten salt fission plant is probably going to be much easier to build and run than a fusion plant using magnetic confinement. However laser igntion and compression in pulsed generation plants does look promising. Ideally a fleet of fission plants being built and tehn fusion plants when the technology is secure would be a good bet. If closed cycle fission plants were used instead of once or twice through cycle plants then we get a large cushion in terms of securty as well whcih is even more desirable. One advantage though that a fusion plant has, which is undeniably fantastic is that they should be able to run either as base load, or as demand plants which makes grid provisioning much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the ball Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Again you are incorrect. It's easy to keep saying incorrect, but without producing any evidence you might as well just say boo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I am saying that 30 years ago we were told fusion reactors would solve all the problems of nuclear power...and we're still waiting...and spending So it hasn't been quietly forgotten then? The actual words that you used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 It's easy to keep saying incorrect, but without producing any evidence you might as well just say boo! The same argument can be applied to your claims that a) renewables can supply both base and peak load, b) that nuclear is the alternative that we must avoid, c) that we can't safely deal with nuclear waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 After Japan's problems should we have new nuclear power stations in the UK? The government's planning a load of new nuclear power stations for the UK. Do we want them? 'After Japan's problems' caused by the recent major earthquake and tsunami do you also think that we should: rebuild all our buildings so they exceed Japans building specs, because some Japanese buildings did collapse in the quake. move all centres of population to high ground distant from the sea so they're safe from tsunamis. Or does your anti-logic only apply to the problems massive earthquakes and tsunamis can cause to nuclear power stations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 It's easy to keep saying incorrect, but without producing any evidence you might as well just say boo! Why bother - as I said your position is so closed minded that you just resort to abuse regardless. So all I do is point out when you are making errors of fact, and unlike yourself I do happen to know what I'm talking about being as I work in the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.