Viable nuclear fusion perfected 20 years ago

But inertial confinement fusion would do so as well - if (and that's a big one) it could achieve greater energy output than input. The propulsion concept from NASA has very little to do with an actual fusion reactor (of the kind that is used to generate power).

Any economically viable fusion reactor, whether inertial, magnetic or combined confinement would use it's own energy output to sustain it's confinement. The proposed fuels for tokamak reactors are currently Deuterium and Lithium (embedded into the reactor wall to breed Tritium) while the Polywell-type proposed by Dr. Bussard would probably have to use Deuterium and Bor-11, since the use of those results in mostly aneutronic fusion (apart from the occasional D-D or D-byproduct fusions). Judging from the results of small-scale fusors you'd have a rather unhealthy level of neutron radiation in a commercial-size ICF reactor that uses D-T - and that means you'd have to invest in really massive shielding and get rid of irradiated waste, which would probably bring it to a similar price as a tokamak reactor (which is already well understood). But this aneutronic fusion is much harder to achieve than regular D-T or even D-D fusion, and it is not yet proven whether inertial confinement can even achieve positive energy output with those! So I think Michel Van's enthusiasm concerning those isn't entirely justified.

Current fusion reactor concepts may result in irradiated waste, but it is important to remember that it will be orders of magnitude less than what is currently produced in fission reactors.

Concerning the NASA concept:

The use of antimatter in the NASA propulsion concept solves the problem of inefficient confinement by creating a MUCH bigger problem: where do we get the antimatter from? Current antimatter production is pretty much the energetically most inefficient process we know and production levels are pitiful - nowhere near enough to fuel such an engine. It's pretty much a concept of what is possible if money is of absolutely no concern, and hasn't got much to do with the topic - it's use of natural (un-enriched) uranium as a neutron deflector (and probably in a fission reactor to power the magnetic confinement) is a result of trying to design a fusion rocket with currently feasible technology.
 
If we are going to argue about the deuterium the largest deposits are located in the Philippines, Soviet Union, China and South Africa. To make matter worse, the deuterium deposits mentioned are located in the Mindinao region with the Abu-Sayyef guerillas. As such, you have the crises of during the height of the Cold War, backing the apartheid regime and the police-state regime under Ferdinand Marcos.

Molybdane, PMN1, and Emperor Qianlong- As for the issue of the uranium poses enough of a significant risk , even as a coating that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) both have said that a "significant risk" are posed by the presence of uranium, even when it is not seen as a fuel....
 
Ummm ... it's not like you need to find a deuterium deposit to mine - the Canadians have been using the Girdler sulfide process to concentrate the naturally occuring deuterium in water for decades. The actual amounts you need for nuclear fusion (even on a global scale) are very small, certainly well below the 700 tonnes/a the plant mentioned in wiki was capable of.

And the uranium is only used in the fusion rocket design - it hasn't got the slightest bit to do with standard fusion power generation. As Qianlong said, you can't use it in either a magnetic or inertial confinement reactor. It being used as a neutron reflector in a highly exotic antimatter/fusion pulse propulsion concept is quite beside the point ...

edit:
If I haven't managed to get an error in at some point, a medium-size powerplant (heating power of 500MW) would need about 19kg of deuterium per year - given 17.6MeV per D-T fusion reaction and 24/7 operation.
 
Last edited:
The world has 2 really big tech problems that need to be fixed: Cheep clean power and small clean batteries to transport it.

If both of this problems can be fixed it the world would be a much richer place for everyone.

Bad new is: Fusion power may never work. More money has been dumped at it than anything other non working tech in history.

Good news is: In a 100 years we should be able to get all our power needs via core taps.

A core tap is drilling a hole through the crust of the earth and using the mantel for geo-thermal power. You can place one pretty much anywhere that stable enough.

It's going to be a while till we can dig that deep (and create stable holes).

If something earth breaking does not come forth we my have to eek by till then.



BTW is Mr_ Bondoc for real? Seems more like someone with an Axe to grind.
 
It would be awesome. No oil wars, less global warming, more power for everyone. Also, the pressure would be on to create better batteries to store the power, because you can't exactly carry a fusion reactor around with you. :p

Not to be some weird hippy optimist or anything, I just can't see any disadvantages.

A side effect of more public support for fusion would possibly be more attention paid to Project Orion and better space exploration overall.
 
Bad new is: Fusion power may never work. More money has been dumped at it than anything other non working tech in history.

It's not that bad as you think. In the most recent experiments, they already got back two third of the energy they put into it. And once ITER goes online, they may actually achieve break-even. It's merely an engineering problem, not a physical impossibility.
 
It's not that bad as you think. In the most recent experiments, they already got back two third of the energy they put into it. And once ITER goes online, they may actually achieve break-even. It's merely an engineering problem, not a physical impossibility.
This.

I see this as a possibility available within the next 20 years. I mean, look at how far the electronics industry has come. Explaining to a pre-transistor vacuum tube expert, how serious do you think he would have taken a description of modern computers? All that was merely an engineering problem. And we humans are so very innovative when there's a prize like being the one to solve the energy problem.
 
If we are going to argue about the deuterium the largest deposits are located in the Philippines, Soviet Union, China and South Africa. To make matter worse, the deuterium deposits mentioned are located in the Mindinao region with the Abu-Sayyef guerillas. As such, you have the crises of during the height of the Cold War, backing the apartheid regime and the police-state regime under Ferdinand Marcos.

Molybdane, PMN1, and Emperor Qianlong- As for the issue of the uranium poses enough of a significant risk , even as a coating that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) both have said that a "significant risk" are posed by the presence of uranium, even when it is not seen as a fuel....

The deuterium planned for fusion reactions is naturally occurring in seawater (around 1 part in 6,000 or so), it isn't in 'deposits' and where you are getting Uranium from (apart form one possible use in a rocket), in planned fusion reactions.

Deuterium plus Tritium = Helium 4 plus one neutron

or

Deuterium plus Deuterium = Tritium plus a proton or Helium 3 plus a neutron

There are still problems with tritium and the neutrons which is why I said 'viable fusion perfected' as the problems will be far less than with fission.
 
Top