The latest on fusion power, via S. Korea and New Jersey!

[RAMA]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...t-fusion-power

They're looking to jump ahead of ITER both in mega-wattage and duration.

RAMA

[sojourner]

No mention of New Jersey in the article? Besides, hopefully Polywell fusion reactors will be a dime a dozen by 2030.

[Gov Kodos]

Just check out Yoyodyne Industries...

[Psion]

sojourner wrote:

---

No mention of New Jersey in the article? Besides, hopefully Polywell fusion reactors will be a dime a dozen by 2030.

The article mentions that this is a collaboration between South Korea and the Plasma Physics Laboratory in Princeton, NJ.

[sojourner]

Psion wrote:

---

The article mentions that this is a collaboration between South Korea and the Plasma Physics Laboratory in Princeton, NJ.

Ah, missed that.

[DarthTom]

This is exciting stuff. What is sad but true in the US because of regulations and the general populations paranoia about nuclear power is that no state/community/town would agree to license such a facility in the US. The US public is weary of nuclear let alone experimental nuclear power. It would never happen here for the foreseeable future.

[sojourner]

I think you give people too little credit. Most people that fear "nuclear" tend to know that it's fission, not fusion that they fear. Fusion has too often in media been portrayed as the "miracle cure" for energy scarcity to be lumped in with "nuclear" fears.

[DarthTom]

sojourner wrote:

---

I think you give people too little credit. Most people that fear "nuclear" tend to know that it's fission, not fusion that they fear. Fusion has too often in media been portrayed as the "miracle cure" for energy scarcity to be lumped in with "nuclear" fears.

I think if you ask your average high school graduate who hasn't had a day of higher education the difference between fission and fusion nuclear technology you'd be surprised how few people know or even have a modicum of understanding on the differences.

People in the US are afraid of nuclear nuclear technology - shit even the insurance industry in the US is afraid of it because the only way new nuclear power plants get built is if the US government takes a portion of the liability in case of an accident.

[Psion]

sojourner wrote:

---

I think you give people too little credit. Most people that fear "nuclear" tend to know that it's fission, not fusion that they fear. Fusion has too often in media been portrayed as the "miracle cure" for energy scarcity to be lumped in with "nuclear" fears.

I'd like to believe that you are right, but I'll remind you of the tale of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

[FordSVT]

DarthTom wrote:

---

I think if you ask your average high school graduate who hasn't had a day of higher education the difference between fission and fusion nuclear technology you'd be surprised how few people know or even have a modicum of understanding on the differences.

People in the US are afraid of nuclear nuclear technology - shit even the insurance industry in the US is afraid of it because the only way new nuclear power plants get built is if the US government takes a portion of the liability in case of an accident.

People are stupid enough to misunderstand nuclear fission, they'll be stupid enough to simply be told that there is no risk with fusion and to get on with their lives. Environmentalists will be on board with it, you're not going to have big lobbies against it, and insurance companies will actually understand the difference because contrary to popular belief they aren't morons and they will differentiate between a fission and a fusion reactor.

[tighr]

FordSVT wrote:

---

People are stupid enough to misunderstand nuclear fission, they'll be stupid enough to simply be told that there is no risk with fusion and to get on with their lives.

Agreed. I think one of the main PR things that would help would simply be to never refer to fusion as a "nuclear" reaction. People already associate the term "nuclear power" with fission reactors, and that's where most of the fear comes from.

Fusion has been portrayed on film/television as a miracle cure for the energy problem. Shoot, even Back to the Future features a compact fusion reactor on the back of the DeLorean.

Fusion is quite simply a completely different process than fission.

[Metryq]

sojourner wrote:

---

I think you give people too little credit.

I can't tell you how many people I've encountered who believe microwave ovens and cell phones emit ionizing radiation. The same people will deny that insolation has the slightest thing to do with climate, while on the other hand believe that solar panels can power everything.

[sojourner]

Maybe those people think you're saying insulation.

[Gary7]

The problem with fusion isn't the danger of explosion, but the fact that there is still a lot of radioactive waste created that is not easily disposed of. Once nuclear physicists solve that problem, find a way to either neutralize the radiation or make it possible to reuse the fuel more than once (again, and again, and again...), nuclear fusion will indeed become the miracle power source we've been looking for. Passive means such as solar, thermal, wind, and hydro are all well and good, but still quite limited for widespread use.

[tighr]

Gary7 wrote:

---

The problem with fusion isn't the danger of explosion, but the fact that there is still a lot of radioactive waste created that is not easily disposed of.

False, the byproducts of fusion are not any more radioactive than common everyday things found in nature (technically, everything is "radioactive"). The byproducts of fusion are all lighter than iron.

That's primarily one of the reasons that fusion is considered safer than traditional nuclear fission; that, and the fact that there is the possibility for much higher energy outputs.