Some of the greatest benefits that fusion reactors present are fuel abundance and accessibility. Deuterium is a stable isotope and naturally occurs in place of hydrogen.
“The long-term fuel security of fusion would appear to exceed that of fission power and hence far exceed that of fossil-fuel energy. A fusion station would use about 100 kg of deuterium and 3 tons of lithium to produce the same amount of energy as a coal-fuelled power using 3 million tons of fuel
Another benefit of fusion fuel is that it is quite easy to extract from raw materials. Deuterium can be separated from oxygen in water by electrolysis
Another positive aspect of the fusion reactor’s fuel is that it is not harmful for the environment and safety risks associated with its storage and handling are minimal. The most important component of the reaction, Deuterium, is a stable isotope and thus produces no radioactivity. The only threat it could pose is flammability, because chemically, Deuterium reacts like hydrogen. But this property is not a big problem, since reasonable techniques for storing hydrogen have already been developed.
http://pitjournal.unc.edu/article/energy-source-tomorrow-benefits-nuclear-fusion-power
[video]http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Nuclear+Fusion+Reactor&FORM=RESTAB#view=detail&mid=9732AC0F1E4C2271CECF9732AC0F1E4C2271CECF[/video]
deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion reaction, high energy neutrons are released along with helium atoms. These electrically-neutral particles escape the plasma contained within the magnetic fields of the tokamak and are absorbed by the "blanket modules" of the surrounding walls. If these blanket modules contain lithium, a reaction occurs: the incoming neutron is absorbed by the lithium atom, which recombines into an atom of tritium and an atom of helium. The tritium can then be removed from the blanket and recycled into the plasma as fuel.Aren't neutrons a by-product of the fusion process? Can they be screened out or shielded? Do they easily dissipate as harmless radiation?
So they are shielded and absorbed/dissipated? What if the blanket doesn't contain lithium? No 'recycling' occurs, but neutrons are safely shielded or absorbed just the same?deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion reaction, high energy neutrons are released along with helium atoms. These electrically-neutral particles escape the plasma contained within the magnetic fields of the tokamak and are absorbed by the "blanket modules" of the surrounding walls. If these blanket modules contain lithium, a reaction occurs: the incoming neutron is absorbed by the lithium atom, which recombines into an atom of tritium and an atom of helium. The tritium can then be removed from the blanket and recycled into the plasma as fuel.
So they are shielded and absorbed/dissipated? What if the blanket doesn't contain lithium? No 'recycling' occurs, but neutrons are safely shielded or absorbed just the same?
I imagine this process is prohibitively expensive, even more so if the ocean's salt water is used.Another benefit of fusion fuel is that it is quite easy to extract from raw materials. Deuterium can be separated from oxygen in water by electrolysis
no, not at allI imagine this process is prohibitively expensive, even more so if the ocean's salt water is used.
exactlyBut the expense of the current methods of getting energy don't factor in the costs of lives in waging war for oil, the costs of destruction due to pollution, or the costs of radiation problems we're now experiencing with damaged nuclear plants.
High energy neutrons can be extremely dangerous to life. On the plus side, they are easily scattered by small atoms or molecules so their dangerous range is small (thick lead walls aren't needed). Concrete works well or even vessels with water. The workers there would have to be protected but the rest of the public would be fine. A fission power plant is dangerous because an uncontrolled chain reaction can cause a meltdown. Fusion does not use chain reactions and is easily cooled so the kaboom risk is much much smaller (unless you believe that whole creating a black hole theory). Plus we won't have to deal with radioactive waste with thousand year half lives.So they are shielded and absorbed/dissipated? What if the blanket doesn't contain lithium? No 'recycling' occurs, but neutrons are safely shielded or absorbed just the same?
Despite what Yoga says, currently very expensive which is why we aren't using it. As I mentioned in another thread, one of the American universities has created a plan for a 'cheap' fusion reactor but that's all still just on paper.I imagine this process is prohibitively expensive, even more so if the ocean's salt water is used.
But the expense of the current methods of getting energy don't factor in the costs of lives in waging war for oil, the costs of destruction due to pollution, or the costs of radiation problems we're now experiencing with damaged nuclear plants.
Deuterium does not occur in the place of hydrogen. Deuterium is one of three isotopes of hydrogen, the others being protium (by far the most common) and tritium (which is radioactive). Also, electrolysis mostly separates hydrogen from oxygen, you still need to separate the deuterium from the protium. The most common method to extract deuterium from water is a chemical method known as the Girdler sulphide process, a dual phase, dual temperature isotopic exchange, the method used at the former Bruce Heavy water plant on Lake Huron. Which brings up another point .... deuterium occurs naturally in fresh water, not just sea water.Some of the greatest benefits that fusion reactors present are fuel abundance and accessibility. Deuterium is a stable isotope and naturally occurs in place of hydrogen. Another benefit of fusion fuel is that it is quite easy to extract from raw materials. Deuterium can be separated from oxygen in water by electrolysis
Not quite. Deuterium readily absorbs neutrons to become tritium, the radioactive hydrogen isotope. This happens all the time in Ontario's CANDU reactors. Tritium is an worker safety and environmental issue, hence the Darlington Tritium Removal Facility.Another positive aspect of the fusion reactor’s fuel is that it is not harmful for the environment and safety risks associated with its storage and handling are minimal. The most important component of the reaction, Deuterium, is a stable isotope and thus produces no radioactivity.
I imagine this process is prohibitively expensive, even more so if the ocean's salt water is used./QUOTE]
Very little of the world's purified deuterium inventory was taken from seawater. Deuterium occurs naturally in freshwater, so why would you ever want to want to process seawater?
The lithium in the blanket is not actually a fuel. The "fuel" is deuterium and tritium, and the energy released is from the fusion of these two isotopes. The lithium in the blanket breeds more tritium by neutron capture, and then this new tritium is recycled nd ultimately used in the ongoing fusion reactions. Without the lithium in the blanket, additional tritium would have to be introduced into the torus. Tritium ain't cheap and it ain't available at Canadian Tire.So they are shielded and absorbed/dissipated? What if the blanket doesn't contain lithium? No 'recycling' occurs, but neutrons are safely shielded or absorbed just the same?
... probably by pure luck but it appears J.C. may have got it right ...Canada .. but under the leadership of Jean Chretien decided to pull out of the project,
... probably by pure luck but it appears J.C. may have got it right ...Perhaps, but the beauty would have been that had this multi-billion dollar project been built here, almost 95% of it would have been paid for by the other ITER member countries.
