Exactly. We all know it's going to be around £150bn by the time its finished around 5-10 years later than it should be.
£50bn question: do we want faster trains or limitless clean energy?
- Thread starter auric
- Start date
Exactly. We all know it's going to be around £150bn by the time its finished around 5-10 years later than it should be.
Accumulated costs may well be many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZETA_(fusion_reactor), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus and others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/23/fusion-power-is-it-getting-closer (same photo but different words) but all monies well spent.
I have the distinct feeling that profits may well be a long way down the line but at a bargain basement I expect HMG could sell a chunk of he family silver with the intention of cooking the books in the short term. Success may well be just a published peer reviewed research paper away, so, to paraphrase Wolfie Smith "Power for the people".
I have the distinct feeling that profits may well be a long way down the line but at a bargain basement I expect HMG could sell a chunk of he family silver with the intention of cooking the books in the short term. Success may well be just a published peer reviewed research paper away, so, to paraphrase Wolfie Smith "Power for the people".
I'm surpisesd no one has pointed out that there is no evidence that fusion is any closer to being a viable commercial energy source than it was 40 years ago. As a technology its been 10-20 years away from being viable for over 40 years now, and whilst many developments have been made, we are still a very long way from it being a viable energy source.
Don't get me wrong, I think its worth investing in fusion (and fission, and wind, and solar, etc), but its definatey a gamble for a the long term with no guarentees it will every be viable. Also not a fan of HS2, but to suggest that spending £50B would make fusion work is highly misleading.
EDIT - Doh! I seem to have re-awakened an ancient thread thinking it was current. It's clearly too late for me to be allowed near the internet. *sigh*
--
Tom
Don't get me wrong, I think its worth investing in fusion (and fission, and wind, and solar, etc), but its definatey a gamble for a the long term with no guarentees it will every be viable. Also not a fan of HS2, but to suggest that spending £50B would make fusion work is highly misleading.
EDIT - Doh! I seem to have re-awakened an ancient thread thinking it was current. It's clearly too late for me to be allowed near the internet. *sigh*
--
Tom
Michael J
pfm Member
Chuck it into a Thorium reactor and split it non-pollutingly into two smaller threads.
Still
he said his naim was ralph
https://www.iter.org
I spent some time with a lead physicist working on this last year.
He informed me that the project has solved all of the major theoretical and practical problems, and they are confident of current schedule.
I spent some time with a lead physicist working on this last year.
He informed me that the project has solved all of the major theoretical and practical problems, and they are confident of current schedule.
Last edited:
Theres a world of difference between solving all theoretical problems and delivering a viable solution, and I would challenge that "all practical problems had been solved" statement.
Right now all fusion reactors consume more power than they produce, and run for very short periods of time. The record for runtime of any reator is 300ms, and the record for for Q (The ratio between power generated vs versus power consumed) is 0.69 (At at JET in the UK in 2016). Both these things currently make fusion power somewhat impractical.
A lot may have changed since I was studying physics, but I don't see any strong evidence of fusion power being a viable and economic power source in the foreseeable future.
On a side note: Brexit has put JET (located in the uK but largely funded by Europe) in a very sticky place.
Maybe the best thing to do is park thing thread and revice it in 10 years and see how fusion power is doing
Right now all fusion reactors consume more power than they produce, and run for very short periods of time. The record for runtime of any reator is 300ms, and the record for for Q (The ratio between power generated vs versus power consumed) is 0.69 (At at JET in the UK in 2016). Both these things currently make fusion power somewhat impractical.
A lot may have changed since I was studying physics, but I don't see any strong evidence of fusion power being a viable and economic power source in the foreseeable future.
On a side note: Brexit has put JET (located in the uK but largely funded by Europe) in a very sticky place.
Maybe the best thing to do is park thing thread and revice it in 10 years and see how fusion power is doing
davidsrsb
pfm Member
China have reached 100s containment and are planning a Q=10 prototype.
Swamp Thing
Remainiac Terrorist
Isn't this research something else we will now be booted out of developing because we stupidly left the EU?
richardg
Admonishtrator
Considering CERN is in Switzerland and the new facility you refer to is being built in France with involvement from countries outside the EU, there are a few points that we could go over here. Brexit ignorace is rife.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Do they use lead physicists due to their imperviousness to radiation?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I have said before that I think that HS2 is more about capacity than speed, but if you are building rail infrastructure in the 21st century, why would you not build it to 21st century standards?