Home » News » Logistics » California Physicists Report Fusion Breakthrough

California Physicists Report Fusion Breakthrough

by Brendan McGarry on February 13, 2014

fusion

The days of fusion-powered helicopters, tanks and trucks that can operate for months on end without refueling — like today’s nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers — may still be a long way off.

But scientists at California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which houses the National Ignition Facility, say they recently made a breakthrough by generating a fusion reaction that created more energy than it took in.

Fusion, which occurs naturally on the sun and makes energy by fusing atoms, is basically the opposite of fission, which creates energy by splitting them. The latter is the foundation for modern nuclear technology and, for decades, has been used on everything from military weapons and ships to commercial power plants.

Fusion has long been an attractive energy source to physicists because such a reactor could theoretically run on the same kind of hydrogen found in ocean water, produce little waste and avoid a catastrophic meltdown because the process doesn’t lend itself to out-of-control chain reactions.

The California team, whose results were published online this week in the journal Nature, didn’t produce a true fusion “ignition,” according to an article by Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post. Overall, the experiment still required far more energy than it produced.

Scientists concentrated 192 lasers on a pellet of hydrogen fuel to compress it and trigger a fusion of the isotopes deuterium and tritium, according to the report. Only about 1 percent of the energy from the lasers entered the pellet, but the technique, known as “alpha heating,” created a series of nuclear reactions that generated a higher level of particles and heat, it stated.

To have practical implications, the scientists would have to produce 100 times more fusion reactions, Mark Herrmann, director of the Pulse Power Sciences Center at the Sandia National Laboratories, a sister institution, told the newspaper.

Even so, the experiment is likely to excite military technologists, who have long dreamed of fusion-powered equipment that could roam a battlefield almost indefinitely and require minimal logistics networks.

The Marine Corps, for instance, has experimented in recent years with using solar panels rather than generators to charge radios and computers in Afghanistan, in part to limit the number of fuel convoys vulnerable to attack by insurgents.

Share |

{ 93 comments… read them below or add one }

Uncle Bill February 13, 2014 at 3:23 pm

When energy is clean and free and plentiful will the environmentalists give it a rest?

Reply

William_C1 February 13, 2014 at 4:00 pm

No because it is nuclear and nuclear = bad in their minds. Nevermind any of that irrelevant stuff like facts of details.

Reply

Vers February 13, 2014 at 11:31 pm

Speak for yourself ignorant one.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen February 14, 2014 at 2:20 am

True though, to degree. Far too many people have a knee-jerk OMG/ONOZ reaction to anything with "nuclear" in it, irrespective of the fact that nuclear (fission) energy is clean and safe, certainly if modern reactor designs are used.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

jaf February 14, 2014 at 5:42 am

Nuclear(fission) energy is not clean and it is not safe. we do make it as safe as possible. With fission there are spent fuel rods, contaminated water and other parts that remain toxic for years and most of these toxic parts are stored on site at the plants. This is because no one wants the stuff.
Nuclear(fission) is susceptible to meltdowns, one in Russia, a near miss in the US and one in Japan that was caused by a tsunami.
Modern reactors are better but there is still waste issues and where to put that waste is problematic.
I am sure Luxembourg would love to be the EU's depository of that waste..lol

Raraavis February 13, 2014 at 4:57 pm

Environmentalism just like any other industry produces money and power for those at the top. They will not quit willingly.

Reply

David February 15, 2014 at 3:51 pm

Why don’t we just set the nuclear waste rods and water on a trajectory into the sun when they will never make it past the heat and be evaporated and atomized in already radioactive space.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen February 16, 2014 at 4:39 am

Considering the failure rate of modern launch vehicles, I'm curious how exactly you plan to do that?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

DHYF February 14, 2014 at 7:47 am

You’re pretty harsh Vers… There is clean energy in solar and wind, however there are issues with those. Everyone has an agenda .. Even the environmentaliss. Lets not forget the “scientists” in England who recently fudged their data to conveniently line up with global warming models

Reply

blight_ February 14, 2014 at 12:24 pm

Waiting for my scheme to put turbines in the Florida keys to be driven by the gulf stream to become commercially viable…

Someone will complain about the stupid manatees

Reply

Gary Gudlunus February 14, 2014 at 11:30 am

You really don't want the EPA to give it a rest…, not if U are serious about what U and your loved ones absorb into their bodies. Clean air, water, non-toxic food products(flesh & plants) are always threatened by greedy producers and transporters of energy related fuels, who find sneaky ways to shave more dollars from safe practices and hide their pollution, all to grab more money at the expense of the public''s health. You really don' t want to ignore any one. What would U do if you observed your neighbors spilling used car oil onto your garden, or throwing shovels of dog and cat manure over the fence into your yard. What if someone's sewage line ruptured under their house and they didn't fix it, because they didn't want to spend the money, because Xmas was around the corner…., and the smell and waste was flowing downhill upon your property and U had to dig an expensive ditch to divert it? U wouldn't and couldn't tolerate none of it. What if a law or regulation didn't exist to protect U, because U and others like U voted against government interference and U desire smaller government? U can't' have it both ways! U don't desire protection? Buy cheap land under highpower lines, downstream from a coal strip mine, upwind of a slaughter house or pork factory farms and the shit waste ponds, downwind from a coal fired power plant. Buy a farm in Pa. with several fracking wells and contaminated drinking wells. Buy a home in the Love canal neighborhood, in Niagara Falls, N.Y. U say NO! What a surprise! Don't. Be afraid to investigate and swallow the truth…, you might remain 'heathy'!

Reply

David February 15, 2014 at 3:57 pm

Mass Production and Big Agra are the problem. The cities are too big to be self sufficient and are consumption based by design. Maybe we should task the EPA with disbanding these pollution magnets and force people to live sustainably like they were meant to. You know what goes into the food you produce and raise yourself and you don’t have to worry about big greed taking risks on your environment because there would be no market for them. We let them in, now we have to deal with them. It all started with chemical fertilizers and mass production. The Earth is overpopulated and when the system breaks down a lot of dependent people will die because they’ve got their heads so far up their asses they can’t see the impending crises coming.

Reply

lewis March 29, 2014 at 6:46 pm

Of course we will, it's exactly what we're hoping for. Fusion is a techno-hippy's wet dream.

Reply

Lance February 13, 2014 at 4:04 pm

Only downside if your fusion powered tank, truck or plane is hit you have a radioactive meltdown 10 feet in front of you. Unless cold fusion comes, the results of being hit in combat may come from just damaged to radio active waste land in seconds. The idea of Nuclear powered planes came far back as the 1950s and a B-36 was built to test a reactor in a plane BUT reality of war and accident proved this not to be feasible so it was dropped.

Reply

dr. agreeable February 13, 2014 at 4:40 pm

Two questions:
1. Do you know the difference between fusion & fission?
2. Do you know what a meltdown really means?

Reply

Gregory Savage February 13, 2014 at 5:50 pm

Obviously not.

Reply

PittEngr February 14, 2014 at 1:10 pm

Lance must have read the title and started commenting:
"Fusion has long been an attractive energy source to physicists because such a reactor could theoretically run on the same kind of hydrogen found in ocean water, produce little waste and avoid a catastrophic meltdown because the process doesn’t lend itself to out-of-control chain reactions."

Reply

Ken Esq February 14, 2014 at 1:55 pm

I guess the reality of war didn't apply to submarines…

Reply

Beltway Bandit February 14, 2014 at 8:27 pm

No shit.

Reply

Max February 13, 2014 at 4:28 pm

Evidently the idea of nuclear-powered aircraft has made a comeback with the TR-3B, because it is a reality.
http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/military-a

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen February 14, 2014 at 2:24 am

"Reality" – you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means" [/Inigo Montoya]

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Max February 14, 2014 at 11:26 am

Are you claiming Military.com is posting lies on its website?

Reply

blight_ February 14, 2014 at 12:26 pm

The Wikipedia link they cite is full of hypotheticals.

Reply

Max February 14, 2014 at 3:01 pm

So the video on that link showing two black triangular craft rotating 360 degrees while sitting still in mid-air is not real, correct?

Thomas L. Nielsen February 14, 2014 at 4:29 pm

The video on Military.com is about as convincing as coin marked "50 BC": Blurry, no scale, no background, no way of telling if the objects are moving, hovering or just plain old CGI.

And the linked Wiki article makes precisely zero mention of anti-gravity, and in fact it states that there is no evidence to support the existence of the TR-3.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

blight_ February 16, 2014 at 7:42 pm

"I saw this clip on youtube once…"

Youtube, ergo, veritas.

tomatojuice February 13, 2014 at 4:46 pm

Wait a minute, im kind of confused. The article reads:

"National Ignition Facility, say they recently made a breakthrough by generating a fusion reaction that created more energy than it took in."

on the other hand, Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post said "Overall, the experiment still required far more energy than it produced"

which is it?

Reply

Durandal February 13, 2014 at 7:04 pm

Well, both sort of… It means we were very inefficient in starting the reaction, but the reaction itself made more energy than we put it. IE we spent 100 dollars to make a 1 dollar investment that resulted in 2 dollars,

Reply

Sev February 14, 2014 at 10:47 am

Well wait. Isn't the energy from the lasers energy that we are putting INTO the reaction? This is hogwash. The reaction has to generate more energy than the ENTIRE system puts into creating it in the first place. There is no such thing as a free lunch and I think that's a universal truth. Look at the Sun. It looks like it's outputting more energy than what went into making it, but when you calculate the gravitational potential energy of the gas and the actual output from the Sun, you'll see that there is still more energy being put into the reaction, though it is graviational.

Reply

ole perfesser February 14, 2014 at 12:56 pm

You are entirely correct that there is no such thing as a "free lunch." It all goes back to the First Law of Thermodynamics and even further back to the Law of Conservation of Matter, or Mass, and Energy (they are interchangeable according to E = MC^2). In any closed system matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We always love the thought that we could create a system that would create free energy with no work, especially the thought of the perpetual motion "myth." But unfortunately, the knowledge of basic college physics that truly educated people study (not the folks who stick to the humanities alone because they are "soft" and "easy") as part of their education, reveals the reality that brings us "back to earth." The amount of output energy produced in a system equals the input energy minus the work done.

Reply

Dfens February 16, 2014 at 12:27 am

You seriously can look at a formula with energy on one side of the equation and matter on the other and make a statement like, "In any closed system matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed." Holy f, where do you keep your brain?

Dave February 14, 2014 at 11:35 am

The fusion event produced more energy than what the lasers released into the hydrogen pellet. The total energy put into the system is a lot more than what the lasers shot into the hydrogen. In fact the article states only 1% of the laser energy went into the hydrogen. The rest went into the surrounding. In other words they have to make 100x more energy per fusion event to reach breakeven for the entire contraption.

Reply

Musson February 18, 2014 at 12:50 pm

It was more like 1/1000th of the energy that went into the fusion.

Reply

blight_ February 14, 2014 at 12:28 pm

Activation energy required to start getting your energy was high. Sounds about right.

Reply

Musson February 18, 2014 at 12:42 pm

Breakeven is a slippery concept. The fusion plasma gave off about the same amount of energy as it absorbed. BUT – the experiment required 1000 X more energy to start.

So did they breakeven if the experiment only generated 1/1000th as much energy as it required? Seems like at least 3 orders of magnitude energy loss to me.

Reply

Musson February 18, 2014 at 12:49 pm

Also, please note that the energy came off as heat. So, it would have to run steam through a generator to get electricity.

Aneutronic fusion, on the other hand, would directly generate electrons – ie. electricity.

Reply

Paul February 13, 2014 at 6:52 pm

Finding the key to making fusion work in real world applications is like finding a cure for baldness. When you ask doctors how long till a cure is discovered they always say it's 5-10 years off. They have been telling people that for the past 40 years. Don't hold your breath people. This is just another money pit.

Reply

JohnB February 13, 2014 at 6:59 pm

Good analogy bald Paul.

Reply

Nadnerbus February 14, 2014 at 1:25 am

Wouldn't that be awesome if the secret to nuclear fusion was Rogain fuel pellets?

Reply

Wolf February 14, 2014 at 6:14 pm

I thought they already did find something for baldness Paul there’s a bunch of ads for it already

Reply

Diqhead Original February 20, 2014 at 12:00 am

Just another way to fund black ops.

Reply

Wing February 13, 2014 at 7:03 pm

The real reason for this kind of facility is to similate nuclear waepons as we cannot test it by real detonation any more. As for fusion energy, it is jsut a pipe dream.

Reply

hibeam February 13, 2014 at 11:30 pm

The first part of your statement is very true. The second part is way the hell wrong.

Reply

hibeam February 13, 2014 at 7:26 pm

The sun is fusion powered. I blame the sun for global warming. We need to shut that damn thing down. Enough is enough. All kidding aside I don't know why we can't have a Manhattan style project to move this along with all due hast and bring it online ASAP. Modern day lasers are a million times better than the old glass dinosaur's they are currently using at the NIF

Reply

Hialpha February 13, 2014 at 11:59 pm

The Sun, yeessssss… THAT SHALL BE THE NEXT TARGET OF COBRA!!

Anyways, I agree with you in theory, but the Manhattan Project resulted directly from the war effort, and while not under that sort of stress our Congress pat's itself for keeping the lights on for the next six months.

Reply

Nadnerbus February 14, 2014 at 1:30 am

I don't think the problem is a matter of funding, so much as physics. My physics GED from Wikipedia is pretty limited, but I think creating and sustaining the insane temperature and pressures required for a useful fusion reaction down here on plain old Earth is a ridiculously difficult thing to do. With fission, it was "just" a matter of bringing the right materials together in the right configuration and timing. Fusion requires an environment that is almost impossible to recreate outside of a star.

I still hope they find a way someday though. A world with plentiful, clean, and cheap energy opens so many doors, for all of humanity.

Reply

Dfens February 17, 2014 at 9:09 am

It is neither clean nor cheap, nor is there any reason to believe it ever will be either of those.

Reply

blight_ February 17, 2014 at 12:00 pm

Too much star trek.

A world with plentiful energy will look just like this one.

Reply

OldGuy February 18, 2014 at 6:32 am

If you remember, President Carter killed the federal funding for fusion research back in the day. For some reason, it hasn't been politically expedient to restart it. If it would have continued, there would have undoubtedly been some kind of breakthrough before now.

Reply

Dfens February 18, 2014 at 9:43 am

Yeah right, because this research was funded by Hostess cup cakes.

Reply

GM1 February 13, 2014 at 10:30 pm

It's to much money in OIL, there isn't any reason to really get us the American people off the nipple. How many businesses will be out of Business…. Oil is King

Reply

Auyong Ah Meng February 14, 2014 at 12:52 am

With Fusion power…

Means man-kind finally have the means to go to space…

With that power….and if man-kind is able to secure the required exotic material and quantity …warp travel is more than a possibility by many magnitudes less…within our life-times….
http://www.gizmag.com/warp-drive-bubble-nasa-inte

Man kind…those in the know has always known there is a hostile universe out there that is imicable to all intelligent life…we after all live on one planet…anything goes wrong…that's the end of man-kind and the children too.

Reply

Dfens February 14, 2014 at 2:53 pm

No, not children too…

Reply

oli February 14, 2014 at 2:12 am

I basically think we have already achieved fusion power. My conscious tells me there are civilian programs and patents and there are top secret ones. The civilian programs haven’t caught up to the military ones. In due time the top secret ones slowly migrate to the civilian. This is my thinking because if the civilian sector achieved this it would be counterproductive in many and serious way. So when I hear something like this its old very old news because we’ve already achieved fusion.

Reply

Hunter76 February 14, 2014 at 10:39 am

You're delusional.

Reply

Tinto February 14, 2014 at 3:56 am

Bottom line, Fusion Power, will not replace OIL unless, unless there is no more oil, or BIG Oil has a gun to their head, or BIG OIL controls the fusion.

Reply

Dfens February 14, 2014 at 8:46 am

Only 60 more years of "research" before it can be used to power anything useful!!! Wow, what a break through. Funny how they don't mention that fusion is a huge neutron generator that makes all the materials around the reaction radioactive. What a convenient lie. The helium by product isn't radioactive, but they don't mention the fact that everything around the reaction is. We already have the cleanest form of sustainable power generation available to us, fission. And what do we do with it? F it away like everything else.

Reply

blight_ February 14, 2014 at 9:04 am

Fission, followed by fuel cells. The latter shares with fusion the question of where your hydrogen comes from…

Reply

Dfens February 14, 2014 at 9:18 am

Well, fuel cells aren't exactly power sources themselves. They are more like the best batteries ever. They would certainly make electric cars far superior to anything we have now. The biggest problem with fuel cells is the platinum required to catalyze the half cell reaction between the oxygen and hydrogen. We chose to ignore the best source of platinum available to us when we let Rockwell design the space shuttle, causing our lunar exploration program to grind to a halt. I'm sure China won't be as stupid that way.

Reply

man without a name February 14, 2014 at 12:16 pm

[Atomic energy] > [chemical energy]

There is no comparison really.

Reply

Dfens February 14, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Hunter76 February 14, 2014 at 10:19 am

DoD has zero business working on a fusion reactor. After civil businesses and non-military agencies develop the basic operating methods, DoD can start looking into the matter.

Those who compare this to the Manhattan Project should try to remember that was a direct development toward a weapon. A power reactor is not per se a weapon.

People worked for centuries on cars, planes, space travel, etc before successes were achieved.

Reply

Taylor February 14, 2014 at 2:15 pm

The fusion lab is under the DOE not the DOD.

Reply

respawnd February 14, 2014 at 2:35 pm

High Energy Weapons require, well, energy. Free energy gives you an infinitely deep cartridge.

Reply

Dfens February 14, 2014 at 2:47 pm

"Free energy"? This clearly is the best thing since Obama was elected.

Reply

Tribulationtime February 14, 2014 at 1:40 pm

In short….Research continues

Reply

Dfens February 14, 2014 at 2:46 pm

You say that like it is a bad thing. Think of all those DOE contractors that would have to find some other part of the government to suck on if fusion were possible.

Reply

Lyton February 14, 2014 at 2:30 pm

from the article: "the experiment is likely to excite military technologists, who have long dreamed of fusion-powered equipment that could roam a battlefield almost indefinitely and require minimal logistics networks."

Any advance in U.S. military technology is a good thing. That being said, if fusion could be made to practically work (producing energy), it would be utterly world-changing and military applications would be the least of it.

Reply

Muttling February 15, 2014 at 12:21 am

I think fusion is the next big leap in energy production and this is a nice step in the right direction, but it isn't the LEAP that will be required to make it happen. Keep working on it LLNL, it will happen at some point but you're not there yet.

Reply

Charles James Haas February 15, 2014 at 10:54 am

The problem really is feeding the reaction to keep the energy levels up so we can gain from the process over a long period of time. In doing so, we also need to contain and control the process in a complex electromagnetic field because of the excessive temperatures involved so the entire thing doesn't melt down (last time I checked, things as hot as the sun don't leave regular objects intact very long). Finally, we need to figure out how to harness the energy from inside the electromagnetic field so we can use it to generate electricity. None of these are even part of the process, as we are still trying to figure out how to light the thing off.

Reply

WarPony February 15, 2014 at 2:28 pm

Big Oil says: You want coal or uranium, sure, we own the mines; you want gas or oil sure, we own the wells; you want solar or fusion, uh, er, those things are not feasible.

Reply

blight_ February 16, 2014 at 7:40 pm

They could just buy out the Chinese solar panel producers…

"You want it from the sun? Here, take these PV panels, and have a mandatory support contract"

Reply

WarPony February 17, 2014 at 11:55 am

And, fusion would be further along, and solar panels would be more efficient if not for the vested interests of Big Oil. These gains in efficiency will not happen until Big Oil makes its bucks off of fossil fuels.

Reply

blight_ February 17, 2014 at 11:59 am

Big Oil is probably out to sabotage the agenda and direction of basic research in the DOE; but I'm not sure if they could actually defeat fusion research any more than the actual technical difficulty of getting it off the ground.

That said, if the PRC and the Middle East go solar (the PRC for energy independence, the Middle East because they are only crude suppliers, and not "big oil" players) they will balance the balance of power.

I would be amused to see OPEC change from a petroleum cartel to an energy production cartel, but that might be too long-term thinking in a corporate culture where the next quarterly earning is the only important thing.

Reply

Chris February 15, 2014 at 7:47 pm

Next stop, "Photon Torpedoes." OK Scotty, WARP SPEED.

Reply

Phono February 24, 2014 at 4:47 am

The concept itself could be a spaceship drive. It is allready thought in Project Daedalus.

Reply

Rob C. February 17, 2014 at 2:26 pm

Fusion is a good way to go, hopeflly scentists will be able make more progress. Less worry of meltdown and more about longivity of the device your using from a vehicle to a ship, is a positive thing.

Reply

wtpworrier February 18, 2014 at 11:54 am

Make way for flying cars and floating bars.

Reply

Jim February 19, 2014 at 11:48 pm

Stories like this ought to be a breakthrough for California walnut growers. Judging by the comments posted above, news about fusion reactions seems to shake the nuts right out of the trees.

Reply

Phono February 24, 2014 at 4:43 am

great achievement, furthermore the concept is greatly adaptable to an engine.

Reply

Chris Ashenden March 22, 2014 at 2:50 am

It is appropriate to think of this tea in terms
of anti-aging and a long and healthy life. The volume of raw spinach (like all other
fresh garden greens) is deceiving. Omega 3′s are most prevalent in
fatty, cold-water fish.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen February 14, 2014 at 6:34 am

Modern and "in development" reactor designs, such as the Integral Fast Reactor and the Molten Salt Reactor have increased passive safety (especially the Molten Salt design) and produce less waste than the reactor designs used today.

The Chernobyl disaster happened with a crappy old Soviet-era reactor, with a number of its safety features deliberately disconnected. So this is hardly a valid example.

/cont./

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen February 14, 2014 at 6:35 am

As for Fukushima, the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster) concluded that the reactor was not designed to withstand an earthquake or a tsunami which, by any reasonable standard of logic, it should have been.

I would have no problem with nuclear waste storage in Luxembourg, provided that Luxembourg has the stable, geological layers required for long-term storage (I don't know). And as I said above, with modern reactor designs, the waste problem is minimized.

And maybe we should consider the "clean" and "safe" aspects in relation to fossil fuel powerplants that yearly pump pollution into the atmosphere. That is not exactly "safe" either, although the hazard is less apparent.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

tmb2 February 14, 2014 at 6:40 pm

50 years of nuclear reactors and you named two incidents (one by a society not known for industrial safety). Three Mile Island shut itself down like it was designed to do. Meanwhile, countless oil power plants around the world are blanketing the atmosphere with pollution around the clock.. Those spent nuclear rods are a concern, but its a future risk versus an already existing problem.

Reply

PittEngr February 14, 2014 at 1:18 pm

They said 10 years for baldness in 1995 and baldness has been basically cured since then. Every guy in my family is bald. My cousins and I started taking propecia and using rogain when our hair started falling out around 25 and all of us have full heads of hair well into our 30's. You can't blame science for not using the cure.

Hydrogen fusion is going to be the savior of our fossil fuel disaster.

Reply

Dfens February 14, 2014 at 2:51 pm

I read an article today that says 1 in 4 Americans didn't know the earth goes around the sun. I guess that's what makes it so satisfying to see people actually understand what's going on.

Reply

Max February 14, 2014 at 3:51 pm

I just love how the deniers try to extricate themselves from an obvious dilemma. The evidence is right in front of their eyes, and is undeniable, yet they body-slam their brain into disbelief because "It can't be true, because I don't believe it! Oh wait, what did I just say?" lol

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen February 14, 2014 at 4:31 pm

"The evidence is right in front of their eyes, and is undeniable" – if you're still referring to that Military.com amateur-night video, then obviously your definitions of "evidence" and "undeniable" differ considerably from mine.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Max February 14, 2014 at 5:45 pm

Like I said…lol

Reply

William_C1 February 15, 2014 at 3:13 am

Thank you. How many people die per year from coal mine collapses vs nuclear radiation poisoning?

Reply

jaf February 15, 2014 at 6:30 am

yes, all the other forms of energy that we use causes lots of harm and have safety concerns but they don't last for 10k years. well, maybe they will, but we won't be here to hear about it.
And to be clear I am not refuting the safety record of OPERATING fission reactors. I just don't believe "clean and safe" describes something that produces waste that will last 125+ generations.
This is from an article about the Yucca mountain repository "Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the facility needs to prevent radiation leakage for up to 10,000 years. But a federal judge ruled that to be inadequate and ordered the administration to require protection for up to one million years. " http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-do

Reply

taj February 15, 2014 at 8:48 pm

Thorium Liquid Fluoride reactor technology (Molten Salt Reactor) is a great and safe source of Nuclear fission energy. By using Thorium as the fuel source you greatly reduce the amount of radioactivity in the waste uranium it produces, in comparison, U235 which is decayed from U233 which is what is currently used in nuclear reactors has a half life of 10,000 years where as a decay from Thorium 233 to Uranium 233 which ends up being the waste it only has a half life of 100 years.

Reply

blight_ February 16, 2014 at 7:41 pm

Deuterium doesn't grow on trees

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: