Fusion power - the answer to global warming and the energy crisis?

Question

How long until we have working fusion reactors and what are the main problems holding back development?

Answer 1

First of all, as an Nuclear Engineer who does fusion research, I want to cation you. Fusion energy is very clean, there are no CO2 emissions and only a small volume of short lived radioactive waste are produce by fusion reactors, but it alone is not the solution to the worlds energy problem and global warming. There is a lot of wisdom in diversifying our means of generating electricity. For instance a fusion based economy requires a huge infrastructure and is not ideal for developing countries.

That being said I am happy to hear that you are interested in fusion. There are a number of experimental fusion reactors (JET, DIIID (D3D), Alcator C mod, NSTX, SSPX), but none of these are large enough to produce electricity. Soon construction is going to start on a new reactor ITER is the size required for a fusion power plant. After ITER the next step is to build a demo plant to work out the kinks, and then if all goes well we could start building power plants.

Currently the biggest problem is fusion research is size. In order to make fusion economical we have to build huge reactors that cost a lot of money. Historically a lot of research has been done of a type of reactor called a Tokamak which basically uses brute force to confine the plasma, but with modern computing and new technologies a lot of people are looking at alternative confinement methods which use finesse to confine the plasma. The alterative methods require less energy to confine the plasma, and might enable us to build smaller more economial power plants.

Answer 2

No, we don't know how to do it.
But, you made a good question which should lead to nuclear fission. India and Europe are building many electric power plants and they recycle the nuclear waste, using French technology. India is also using American technology
The only choices are renewable resources: Solar power cells, windmills, etc. and Nuclear powerplants.
Oil will become so expensive, only powerplants will use it.
Since only trees remove CO2 from the air, and forests are being destroyed all over the world.
But, a new promising alternative is being developed at MIT to design and build floating windmills that could be anywhere in the oceans. This alternative could provide all the energy we need. Current designs send the electricity from the windmill to the shore with a cable but, future designs for use further from the shore, could use the electricity to purify ocean water and make hydrogen which could be stored and collected by special ships. This is the only option with large enough potential. Poor nations could use them as well as rich ones.

But, we better hurry, even if we bring CO2 Emissions down to ZERO, Global Warming will continue. We best hurry or we are doomed. Venus has a CO2 atmosphere at a temperature of 846 F Deg.
Saying "I am sorry" afterwards will not change anything.

Answer 3

We already have working fusion reactors. The problem is having reactors that require less energy to run than they produce. I believe the most famous fusion reactor to date is the Tokamak (sp?).. It's a toroidal hot fusion type.

Answer 4

Fusion reactors must get VERY HOT to work... On the order of millions of degrees. At this temperature, matter is a plasma. To contain the plasma requires an INTENSE magnetic field, much greater than anything developed so far.

Answer 5

There is as yet no fusion reactor capable of practical power generation. Enabling breakthroughs can't be predicted, so it's too early to ask when we'll have them. They certainly could be part of the solution to both problems.

Answer 6

it really is a political problem of co-dependence: if global warming isn't brought about by technique of added CO2, then there is not any power disaster. definite, petroleum is realistically constrained contained in the little while period, yet coal isn't. we've more effective than sufficient coal to power us until eventually technologies catches up with option power study, ensuing in an extremely practicable, and sustainable option. inspite of if we locate out that carbon dioxide is the muse rationalization for global warming, it won't be able to be sensible to "decelerate" economies and next study into the style of latest options. evaluate that proscribing this power ought to lead on to one of those darkish a lengthy time period the position human beings placed extra value on in basic terms SURVIVING rather of THRIVING; such an ecosystem ought to really push a conceivable answer out of attain. rather, we would commit a mess of power in route of arising options, inspite of if it meant increasing CO2 output contained in the little while period. In economics, it will be concept-about as an chance value. imagine of this: you're walking alongside the practice tracks and through a tunnel. you're 3/4 of how by ability of once you listen the oncoming practice. Do you're taking the counterintuitive action and run in route of the continuing practice, or do you're taking the probably secure action, operating faraway from the practice? there is not any longer some thing that fuels progression/innovation like freedom. regrettably, truly some the "ideas" require that we sacrifice a number of this freedom. Are we taking the "secure" determination by technique of attempting to run faraway from this problem?