[Kosh]

I really dont see what Greenpeace's problem with this is. Large amounts of power produced cleanly from simple materials readily available that would last for generations. Fusion should be a dream come true for them.

Besides, Generation 3 and 3+ fission reactors aren't really dangerous since most (if not all) of them have  passive safety features. Even so the dangers of most earlier fission plants have been wildly overstated. Yes, Chernobyl was a tragedy, but it was really the black sheep for several reasons: 1.) Chernobyl at that time was run mostly by coal miners. 2.) Some idiot wanted to run a dangerous experinment that everyone else objected to, which involved purposely shutting off the main cooling systems 3.) In a failed attempt to prevent said experinment, some other morons decided to swtich off the backup cooling systems. Had these been left on the tragedy would not have happened. 4.) The Chernobyl reactor core itself was made from graphite, and so if all the cooling systems were shut down the core would get hot enough to make the graphite explode and burn. Only a handful of reactors with graphite cores exist in the world, and all are old and located in Russia.

[IceFire]

I'm very much an environmentalist and believe that we should do the right thing for the planet...even if it costs more in some cases.  But nuclear technology is not something we should shy away from.  Allot of energy needs can be met if they can get these Fusion reactors worked out and online...and it seems like...although I'm no expert...that the environmental impact is not insurmountable.  Yes we definitely need things like wind, tidal, geothermal, and solar...but you need something else too.  Fusion seems like a great way to go.  All of these need to be developed...its that or we go back to being a pre-electric society.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

If you burn biomass, you still harm the environment since the fire will eat up the nearby oxygen.

Well, Chernobyl was built by a country that used to spend almost all its finances on weapons, not power. Something bad was bound to happen. And, in any case, if Chernobyl didn't happen, there will eventually be a disaster.

[Herra Tohtori]

If you burn biomass, you still harm the environment since the fire will eat up the nearby oxygen.

Plus Minus equals zero... The plants were releasing oxygen and binding carbon dioxide when they were alive; when they are burned they use oxygen and release carbon dioxide.

There are other, a lot more important things in why biomass is not a good, environmental-friendly, sustainable way to produce energy in large scale. Namely the environmental effects of raising said biomass.

[BloodEagle]

I think it depends how 'clean' the reaction is. From what I understand, the only residue from Fission in an ideal situation is water, or possibly hydrogen, but possibly 100% efficiency is impossible in the reactions? I'm more guessing than anything else to be honest.

That said, I'm not certain about the concept of neutrons knocking down a building, if these things can take out high-density concrete, then I'm somewhat concerned what they would do to organic matter, and if that were the case, then why is Fusion the Shangri-la of power-creation. I think there might be more to it than is being argued there.

There's already neutron bombs available, and they're designed to take out organic matter only.

Neutron bombs don't work like they're supposed to.

[NGTM-1R]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand things a Tokamak-style fusion reactor, which seems most likely to be made to actually work, poses absolutely no threat to anything unless you happen to be within a hundred feet of it when the magnetic bottling goes out. Then you're looking at the reactor plasma possibly frying you, but it won't retain its heat or coherence too long outside the reactor, so there is in effect a built-in mechanism to limit any possible damage.

[Bobboau]

you lot are just now noticing that Greenpeace sees anything good for man kind as bad for the planet?

[NGTM-1R]

you lot are just now noticing that Greenpeace sees anything good for man kind as bad for the planet?

Basically as far as I'm concerned the only thing Greenpeace ever does is attempt to sabotage the sailings of US SSBNs, and gets dealt with very harshly in the process.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The ELFs aren't any better, are they?

[Bobboau]

there basically just a slightly less lazy offshoot, I'll give them one shred of respect, at least they don't only whine about ****. but they are just all one and the same.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

It is respectable to see them moving around, but that's about as much respect I can give them. It either shows us that they really have the drive, or they're just desperate attention-seeking missiles.

[MarkN]

Actually, the only hazard of a fusion reactor is not even the plasma (due to the small amount in the reactor at one time), but if there is a leak in the reactor, the energy of the plasma will transfer to incoming air, and if the leak is of the right size (large wnough to let air in fast, but small enough not allow heated air back out fast enough, the reactor will explode - with less explosive power than the boiler will if it fails catastrophically.
As for the likelihood of seeing fusion power in the near future, i'm doubtful, as ITER keeps on being delayed over political wranglings. In the near future out power generation will have to rely on simpler methods of generation.
Another thing is that for power generation oil is dirtier than coal, but this is because the oil which is generally used is the stuff which is too poor quality to be used as vehicle fuel (usually the liquid waste of the refinery), and produces very little power for the amount of fuel used.

Burning biomass is great idea, except that very few people actually do that. The majority of 'biomass' fuels are heavily refined, and the most common, ethanol produced from corn, uses most of the available energy from the corn in producing the ethanol, not burning it in an engine.

[Mika]

The only way how I can imagine the fusion reactor would be dangerous is the radioactive objects in the proximity of the exact fusion point. It could be possible to make a dirty bomb by blowing the safety shields up, but other than that it is pretty hard to figure out.

Fusion reactors are delayed mainly due to the budget reasons, if my sources are correct. But since most of the scientists find basic research in CERN more important...

Mika

[NGTM-1R]

But since most of the scientists find basic research in CERN more important...

To be fair, it's really not a scientist's problem anymore so much as it is an engineer's.

[Bob-san]

There's not enough Biomass to produce ALL the energy we want and need. And that's only talking about vehicles. Nuclear fission and fusion are our only real ways to make electricity without clogging our atmosphere. I saw an interesting article on getting rid of the deadly products of the reaction--which was basically bury them a few hundred feet in the ground in bedrock. Not the best way (it's still here, just hundreds of feet below our feet), but I do think that effectively rocketing nuclear material into a solar body is a better choice. The sun, a gas giant, or our less-livable planets would get rid of the waste. I'd probably say into a gas giant--since their gravity well is simply enormous from all their mass--and the largest (Jupiter) is a few percent short on mass to become a dwarf star.

On the other hand, fusion makes an interesting alternative. Fission is definitely high-energy, and fusion is something we probably won't master for another hundred years. Remember we've had fission reactors for over 60 years now--and we've only really mastered their use in the last decade or two. Besides--fusion needs help to react. They have a small enough amount of matter that (right now) they won't be self-sustaining. If we figure out how to contain them in magnetic bottles, we may be able to control them enough to start making energy. That's our primary threshold--how to make more energy from the reaction than we spend making the reaction happen in the first place.

Other than that, you'd need high-mass reactants in a fusion reaction to make high-mass isotopes. Using ^{3[/sub]H, 2[/sub]H, and 1[/sub]H doesn't make these heavy isotopes. It makes 4[/sub]He (3[/sub]H + 1[/sub]H = 4[/sub]He + Energy). Also, a reactor will use up its supplies of the lightest reactants before it uses its products. In astrophysiscs, a late-life star will convert from Hydrogen fusion to Helium fusion, eventually going on to fuse higher-mass products.}

[KewlToyZ]

Actually there was an article in Popular Science called "Carbon Discredit".
It would almost appear a new battle front of idocy is in the making.
Call it a Green War if you will but it pretty much looks like environmentalists are getting the same reputation as witch hunters in the middle ages if this nonsense continues.
Doing nothing and shooting down any reasonable hypothesis or test without a substantially greater amount of evidcence isn't science.
Never has been never will be.

[Flaser]

I think it depends how 'clean' the reaction is. From what I understand, the only residue from Fission in an ideal situation is water, or possibly hydrogen, but possibly 100% efficiency is impossible in the reactions? I'm more guessing than anything else to be honest.

That said, I'm not certain about the concept of neutrons knocking down a building, if these things can take out high-density concrete, then I'm somewhat concerned what they would do to organic matter, and if that were the case, then why is Fusion the Shangri-la of power-creation. I think there might be more to it than is being argued there.

There's already neutron bombs available, and they're designed to take out organic matter only.

I still want to know how Greenpeace came about with the quote, though. Unless you can make nukes out of helium, which is already available anyway and so if it's possible is not a new risk anyway. Fusion bombs? Could they use the by-products produced?

NO. Nutron bombs are NOT designed to take out ORGANIC MATTER only. That's a common misconceptions. Neutron bombs were designed to take out armored vehicles since the primary lethality of an A-Bomb is heat, and beyond that the pressure wave.

The thick armor of a tank can actually easily handle the heat, and even the shockwave.

So what should be done? Hmm...radiation penetrates that armor with ease. Hurray! Let's build a bomb with increased radiation emission.

It was a bummer, they doubled the radiation output, but to immediately kill the crew of the tank battalion they'd need to give them 20 times the lethal radiation dose. Ergo for a mere 200 meters in increased lethality they had a lot more dangerous and lot more dirty bomb on their hand.

The project was scrapped.

[blackhole]

If Total Annihilation taught me anything growing up. . .it's that one reactor is better than six-hundred solar panels. As long as no pesky Core get near it.

2 reactors are better then 1. (but spread them apart so they don't get knocked out by a giant swarm of vamps)

[Bobboau]

I think it depends how 'clean' the reaction is. From what I understand, the only residue from Fission in an ideal situation is water, or possibly hydrogen, but possibly 100% efficiency is impossible in the reactions? I'm more guessing than anything else to be honest.

That said, I'm not certain about the concept of neutrons knocking down a building, if these things can take out high-density concrete, then I'm somewhat concerned what they would do to organic matter, and if that were the case, then why is Fusion the Shangri-la of power-creation. I think there might be more to it than is being argued there.

There's already neutron bombs available, and they're designed to take out organic matter only.

I still want to know how Greenpeace came about with the quote, though. Unless you can make nukes out of helium, which is already available anyway and so if it's possible is not a new risk anyway. Fusion bombs? Could they use the by-products produced?

NO. Nutron bombs are NOT designed to take out ORGANIC MATTER only. That's a common misconceptions. Neutron bombs were designed to take out armored vehicles since the primary lethality of an A-Bomb is heat, and beyond that the pressure wave.

The thick armor of a tank can actually easily handle the heat, and even the shockwave.

So what should be done? Hmm...radiation penetrates that armor with ease. Hurray! Let's build a bomb with increased radiation emission.

It was a bummer, they doubled the radiation output, but to immediately kill the crew of the tank battalion they'd need to give them 20 times the lethal radiation dose. Ergo for a mere 200 meters in increased lethality they had a lot more dangerous and lot more dirty bomb on their hand.

The project was scrapped.

http://www.manuelsweb.com/sam_cohen.htm

the designer of the neutron bomb disagrees with you.

[karajorma]

http://www.manuelsweb.com/sam_cohen.htm

*files link away for the inevitable argument next time someone says Iran can't be trusted with nukes*