GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 30, 2009 15:38:40 GMT -5
Alright so the NIF facility is up and running. How cool is it? What is the real potential of this research other than the awesomeness of a giant laser? I'm sure we're three posts away from the politcal implications, but I'd like some science nerds to jump in here.
Inquiring SFSers want to know. Thanks.
Edit: wondering why I couldn't find this on B&G. Move this please unless the laser improves our offensive rebounding.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,483
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 30, 2009 18:20:44 GMT -5
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 30, 2009 21:06:06 GMT -5
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,483
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 30, 2009 22:03:28 GMT -5
The promise of fusion, which would essentially result in limitless energy (taking an isotope of hydrogen from the oceans), was expected to take 50 years. That statement was made about 30-35 years ago. It is actually easy to promote fusion, that is, if you have a fission (atomic) bomb to start the process. The fusion reaction, which fuels the sun and the stars, need temperatures of a million degrees or more to fuse the elements together to form another element. The energy attained from this process is what is manifested in a hydrogen bomb. The trick to make this useful for energy without blowing up the planet is to do this without having to set off a bomb. There were two approaches to do this - the tokamak and the laser approaches. It became then an engineering process, to fuse the elements without destroying the vessel that held the elements. The tokomak tried to do this magnetically. The lasers were to focus their power (and the more powerful the better) in a small area in the center of a vessel. I believe they reached the break even point years ago, but no news (at least to the general public) had been forthcoming for years. The break even point is the situation where you get out as much energy that you put in. I guess they had been stuck here for quite a while. This powerful laser facility might be what is needed to go beyond this point.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 31, 2009 7:29:05 GMT -5
Why spend a dime on this effort when the environmentalists will find something wrong with actually using it?
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,483
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 31, 2009 11:57:33 GMT -5
Ed, I consider myself an environmentalist (that is why, in part, I work for the EPA), but I have always put great hope in the fusion process. There might be parts of the process that people might object to, mainly the use of or production of radioactive elements (mainly, tritium, the radioactive isotope of hydrogen). So I think it is important to be proactive in identifying any part of the process that may be a stumbling block to some people and present the science in a way to educate people about this. We scientists may do our science well, but we have not communicated the results of our science very well, at least in the US.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 31, 2009 12:15:53 GMT -5
Why spend a dime on this effort when the environmentalists will find something wrong with actually using it? Because the Weekly World News said it might work. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 31, 2009 17:30:06 GMT -5
Thanks Nevada.
Ed's response, while a swipe, has some odd validity. There seems to be a wing of environmentalists who call themselves pro-science who are on auto-concern when science tries to solve the problem. "Wind" and "Sun" are easy for them to understand so they're good. "Fusion" sounds like that scary Twilight Zone bomb with the guy who likes to read so it's automatically not as good.
Who knows if this will work, but I'm glad the research is happening. Again, thanks Nevada for providing some background to understanding the potential implications. Hey we're printing money, might as well print it to do some scientific research.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on May 31, 2009 17:47:01 GMT -5
Ed's response, while a swipe, has some odd validity. There seems to be a wing of environmentalists who call themselves pro-science who are on auto-concern when science tries to solve the problem. "Wind" and "Sun" are easy for them to understand so they're good. "Fusion" sounds like that scary Twilight Zone bomb with the guy who likes to read so it's automatically not as good. I think painting environmentalists as a whole as anti-nuclear or even as anti-fusion today isn't accurate though. Twenty-five years ago it was, but no one was real worried about climate change twenty-five years ago. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 31, 2009 20:05:11 GMT -5
Ed's response, while a swipe, has some odd validity. There seems to be a wing of environmentalists who call themselves pro-science who are on auto-concern when science tries to solve the problem. "Wind" and "Sun" are easy for them to understand so they're good. "Fusion" sounds like that scary Twilight Zone bomb with the guy who likes to read so it's automatically not as good. I think painting environmentalists as a whole as anti-nuclear or even as anti-fusion today isn't accurate though. Twenty-five years ago it was, but no one was real worried about climate change twenty-five years ago. No, not at all. It has changed partially because of climate change but partially because more people are concerned about the environment in general. When Stardust and Willow were the dominant non-science community voice, well uh let's just say the dialogue was limited. There's a lot more interest now from a wider range of people so as such there's less knee-jerking on a wide range of potential solutions. |
|
|
|
Post by grokamok on Jun 1, 2009 12:40:35 GMT -5
Did anyone else know Dr. Finn in the Physics Dept? He was on the board of inquiry about the accident at Three Mile Island, I believe. He would tell a story about identifying leaks that had not been contained completely within the facility: the only small traces of radioactivity that were found were along the roads; after some investigation as to why this might be (was waste shipped in unsound containers, etc.), it was determined that this radioactivity was exactly that which was naturally inherent in all asphalt (yes, just as much as in the road in front of your house).
If the engineering problem can be solved, fusion promises to be far safer, I believe.
|
|
