arnold@gatech.UUCP (07/31/84)
The "best" new power source that should be developed is Fusion Energy.
Fusion should be able to supply all the "high-grade" energy needed for
heavy industry, and at the same time be "clean". I.e. fusion power
doesn't leave lots of nuclear waste materials lying around.
I happen to agree that shipping some of the industry up into orbit is
a good idea, but for down home power generation, fusion energy sure sounds
good to me!
--
Arnold Robbins
CSNET: arnold@gatech ARPA: arnold%gatech.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
UUCP: { akgua, allegra, hplabs, ihnp4 }!gatech!arnold
Save the Arithmetic IF!snafu@ihuxi.UUCP (Dave Wallis) (08/03/84)
> The "best" new power source that should be developed is Fusion Energy. > Fusion should be able to supply all the "high-grade" energy needed for > heavy industry, and at the same time be "clean". I.e. fusion power > doesn't leave lots of nuclear waste materials lying around. While fusion is somewhat cleaner than fission, it is by no means free from waste. The primary result of a hydrogen fusion reaction is helium, which is only mildly radioactive. However, another bi-product of the reaction is very high energy neutrons. After several years in a reactor being bombarded by the neutrins, the reactor containment walls become extrememly radioactive. These materials have quite a long half-life, and are as difficult to dispose of as the waste from a fission reactor. Scientific American had an article describing these problems sometime in early 1984, if you are intersted. -- Dave Wallis ihnp4!ihuxi!snafu AT&T Network Systems, Inc. (312) 979-5894
brucec@iddic.UUCP (08/03/84)
**** A potential problem of fusion energy could occur if the dream of of extremely cheap, 'clean' energy is actually realized. There would then be no motivation for energy efficiency and as a result rampant thermal pollution could devastate the ecology. brucec . ZZ
mark@teltone.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (08/03/84)
<> > The "best" new power source that should be developed is Fusion Energy. > Fusion should be able to supply all the "high-grade" energy needed for > heavy industry, and at the same time be "clean". I.e. fusion power > doesn't leave lots of nuclear waste materials lying around. Except for the fact that producing a practical fusion reactor is arguably the most difficult engineering feat ever attempted. Remember when FISSION was going to be "too cheap to meter"? Fusion is a lot tougher! -- ....tektronix!uw-beaver!teltone!mark
ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) (08/04/84)
Uh, Arnold, I hate to say this, but... Fusion ain't all that clean, either. You see, it seems that all of the current methods tend to result in the linings of the containment vessel becoming highly radioactive. This, then, becomes another contaminated product to get rid of. There are other problems, but I'm at work, and my fusion references are either at home, or has left work for the day. As for home, uh...well, they've got to be LARGE. Unless you can figure out a better containment than the various methods in use today--Tokamak, Elmo Bumpy Torus, Laser confinement, etc.--you'd better expect your property taxes to go up when you build the extension for the power generator... Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
eugene@aurora.UUCP (Eugene miya) (08/05/84)
The 'promise' of low waste fusion is somewhat bogus. There are lots of unknowns still regarding containment. The best figures I have heard say fusion vessels would have a lifetime of at best 30-40 years [roughly equivalent to fission vessels] due to neutron bombardment. After that, you would have a radioactive heap of zirconium steel alloy. Let's proceed with fusion research, but let's not make the same mistakes we made with fission. --eugene miya NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (08/06/84)
[]
Fusion power has some serious technical problems -- the main one is that
of "containment" -- how to keep things together long enough to extract
more energy than it takes to mash them together. Physicists have been
working at solving this problem since 1947, and haven't solved it yet;
still, there is *one* simple way to do it: gravity containment.
Unfortunately there are a few side effects: the reactor has to be *very*
large, about the size of the sun. You wouldn't want to have one in your
basement. It might be useful, though, located at some safe distance, where
all the neutron-induced isotopes are safely contained, and all that reaches
you is pure, clean, thermal energy.
Recommended distance: about 93 million miles.
Of course, all this is just theory ...
--
Ed Nather
{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!nather
Astronomy Dept., U. of Texas, Austinclt@pur-phy.UUCP (Carrick Talmadge) (08/06/84)
>While fusion is somewhat cleaner than fission, it is by no means free >from waste. The primary result of a hydrogen fusion reaction is >helium, which is only mildly radioactive. As far as I know, the only two radioactive isotopes of helium are Helium 5 (10**-21 sec lifetime), and Helium 6 (.86 sec lifetime), neither of which are produced in measureable quantities in any reaction chain being proposed at the moment. Your main danger would really be from contaminants in the initial hydrogen "fuel". >However, another bi-product >of the reaction is very high energy neutrons. After several years in a >reactor being bombarded by the neutrins, the reactor containment walls >become extrememly radioactive. A few points here. First, (if I recall correctly), you get surplus high energy neutrons only in the tritium (Hydrogen 3) reactions, but not in the deuterium reactions. (And yes, they are working on deuterium based reactors, as well as tritium based reactors). Secondly, the reactor containment walls will become highly radioactive only if improper choice of materials for the walls are made. As material technology progresses, we may well be able to develop materials which require a much higher energy to become activated, thus minimizing the danger of activated containment walls. Finally, even in a "worst case" scenario, where the wallsdo become highly radioactive, I still don't see nearly the threat to the environment and human life that fossil fuel plants possess, via acid rain, SO2 production, etc... Carrick Talmadge Purdue University Physics Dept. West Lafayette, IN 47907 UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:clt INTERNET: clt @ pur-phy.UUCP
mmr@utmbvax.UUCP (Mike Rubenstein) (08/06/84)
> Unfortunately there are a few side effects: the reactor has to be *very* > large, about the size of the sun. You wouldn't want to have one in your > basement. It might be useful, though, located at some safe distance, where > all the neutron-induced isotopes are safely contained, and all that reaches > you is pure, clean, thermal energy. > Recommended distance: about 93 million miles. > Of course, all this is just theory ... Sorry, but that won't do. Recent research has shown that even at that distance the resulting ultraviolet radiation would be a significant cause of skin cancer. I'm sure you'd never have a chance at getting this plan past EPA for this reason. -- Mike Rubenstein, OACB, UT Medical Branch, Galveston TX 77550
hgp@houem.UUCP (Howard Page) (08/07/84)
(*) >The "best" new power source that should be developed is Fusion Energy. >Fusion should be able to supply all the "high-grade" energy needed for >heavy industry, and at the same time be "clean". I.e. fusion power >doesn't leave lots of nuclear waste materials lying around. Well, not really. The "best" new power "source" is: C O N S E R V A T I O N. Cheers! Howard G. Page ..!ihnp4!houem!hgp
dsmith@proper.UUCP (David Smith) (08/07/84)
{A sacrifice to the (hopefully) mythical line eater}
We already havea large fusion reaction. It's called the sun. The
problem is doing anything with all the energy we get out of it. If we had
an efficient method of converting light energy to electricity, we'd have it
made.
A gravity containment reactor would pose the same problems as the
sun. There's a hell of a lot of energy coming out of it, but how do you
use it? Any method of collecting the power would have to be in space, and
once you've got it, how the heck do you get it down here? Microwaves have
been proposed for power transmissions, but whenever I think of microwaves
carrying enough energy to actually be useful, I keep on seeing all these
birds, airliners, etc. flying through the beam and getting cooked.
David Smitharnold@gatech.UUCP (Fred Fortran) (08/08/84)
[Elect Bill The Cat!]
OK, OK! So now I know that Fusion reactions causes the walls of the
container to become radioactive! I apologize for not being omniscient;
this is something I simply did not know when I posted the original suggestion.
I am a computer scientist, not a physicist!
I do appreciate the efforts of people who politely set me straight (versus
the "you idiot, don't you know that ..." sort of mail I have recieved).
It still seems that the Fusion is "less" problematical than fission, it just
isn't as perfect as I thought. I would still advocate lots of fusion research.
What I meant by 'home' use, is that the local power company uses a fusion
generator to give me my 120V 60hz AC. I had no intention of building one
in my basement! (I can see it now; HeathKit's do it yourself fusion generator!
Why put money in the Utilities' pockets? :-)
Thanks to all who set the record straight. And let's keep up the research!
--
Arnold Robbins
CSNET: arnold@gatech ARPA: arnold%gatech.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
UUCP: { akgua, allegra, hplabs, ihnp4 }!gatech!arnold
Save the Arithmetic IF!dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (08/09/84)
<...> >From: nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) Sun Aug 5 18:20:54 1984 >... >Unfortunately there are a few side effects: the reactor has to be *very* >large, about the size of the sun. You wouldn't want to have one in your >basement. It might be useful, though, located at some safe distance, where >all the neutron-induced isotopes are safely contained, and all that reaches >you is pure, clean, thermal energy. > >Recommended distance: about 93 million miles. Unfortunately, this is not a politically viable energy source, since it fails several important tests: It is too heavily centralized. It is too large scale. It involves a very wasteful and inefficient energy deliverty system. The energy is delivered preferentially to certain areas. It is known to cause skin and possibly other cancers. It is too high-tech. Remember, Small Is Beautiful!! D Gary Grady (dgary@ecsvax) :-)
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (08/09/84)
[9 August 1984]
With respect to being cooked by microwaves beamed down from a
Solar Power Satellite:
I am presently working on a study to design a Solar Power
Satellite made from Lunar materials. The study is funded by the
Space Studies Institute in Princeton, NJ. My full time job is at
Boeing, with the group that did the original SPS studies in 1979-80
(Rockwell was doing parallel work at the same time).
We set the beam power at the center of the beam to 300 watts/
square meter. This is 30% of noontime Arizona sun. This was
chosen intentionally to prevent people and animals from getting
cooked. The size of the beam is determined by how large the
transmitter in space is. The larger the transmitter, the smaller
the beam. The beam normally is made as small as possible for
a given transmitter, because the receiver on the ground is fairly
expensive, and you want it to be as small as possible to keep costs down.
Because of this, the beam cannot be made any smaller, thus the
intensity cannot be made any higher. Should a bird fly into the
beam, it would feel very hot (in the day) , or just warm (at night).
If it felt uncomfortable, presumably it would fly away. A person
walking into the center of the receiver at high noon on a clear day,
and who climbed upon top of one of the receiving antennas would
probably pass out from the combined heat of sun and microwaves.
Ignoring the fact that doing this makes as much sense as climbing
into the burner of a coal-fired plant while it is running, the individual
would have to first climb a fence, then hike at least two miles to
the center of the beam. When he or she climbed on top of the receiver,
the power from that unit would stop, signaling a unit failure to the
control room. They would send out a crew to fix it, and find the looney.
A commercial airliner has a conducting surface for lightning
protection. This also serves to bounce radar off, and would bounce
microwaves off just as well. The folks inside would not be affected.
Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!edermikevp@proper.UUCP (08/13/84)
<what blank line eater?> Re: The best new energy source is CONSERVATION. Wrong. Absolutely, 100% wrong. Conservation does not produce a single erg of energy. It can help gain a little time, but that is it. Most of the people who promote conservation as The Solution To All Our Problems are actually proposing leaving the problem of new energy sources to future generations, to borrow one of the phrases they're so fond of. When you talk Conservation Alone, you are talking about zero economic growth. This denys upward mobility to those people in the lower economic groups. Their only hope of advancement is the economic growth that the "soft energy" people disdain. And ultimately, the fossil fuels will be gone anyway. What then, if we've dismantled our future to placate the fears of the technophobes?
johng@metheus.UUCP (08/13/84)
> From: eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) > Subject: Re: alternate, hopefully safe, energy sources > Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle > > [9 August 1984] > > With respect to being cooked by microwaves beamed down from a > Solar Power Satellite: > > ....This is 30% of noontime Arizona sun. This was > chosen intentionally to prevent people and animals from getting > cooked. > > ....Should a bird fly into the beam, it would feel very hot > (in the day) , or just warm (at night). > If it felt uncomfortable, presumably it would fly away. A person > walking into the center of the receiver at high noon on a clear day, > and who climbed upon top of one of the receiving antennas would > probably pass out from the combined heat of sun and microwaves. > > Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!eder That would be fine if heating due to microwaves was the same as heating due to IR radiation. Most of what we experience as heat comes from contact with warmer materials (mostly air) therefore heat is transferred to the skin where all our heat sensing nerves and sweat glands are. Microwaves that produce heating interact directly with water molecules and would therefore cause heating THROUGHOUT the creature in question. I hope I don't have explain what happens when your CORE body temperature goes up just a few degrees. Since this is internal, the creature would not detect the temperature rise in time. Now that that's cleared up... The whole argument about heating up creatures/people can be avoided. There are three different interactions between microwaves and water. 1) The microwaves are reflected by the water molecules. Excellent for weather radar, but not so handy for transmitting energy through a relatively moist atmosphere. 2) The microwaves are absorbed by the water and converted into heat. Useful for microvawe ovens. Also not too useful from orbit unless cooking some clouds/animals was you intention. 3) The microwaves completely ignore the water molecules. This allows the most energy to be transmitted to the ground. Also, the beam isn't obstructed by wet obstacles such as clouds, animals, fools, and protesters who will lie in the middle of the beam :-) Agreed the uWaves in example 3 are of the lower frequencies (i.e. less energy), but considering the atmosphere in which they have to pass through, it is still probably the most efficient. ----------- Scriiblings from the sometime schitzophrenic desk of ----------- John Gregor. ...!tektronix!ogcvax!metheus!johng (for the summer) This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. If this were an actual emergency, do you really think we'd stick around to tell YOU?
dick@tjalk.UUCP (Dick Grune) (08/13/84)
Once we have unlimited energy (and the FUSION reaction provides that) and high enough technology (and FUSION requires that), we can solve most of our environment problems. With energy galore we can: - use electricity for almost everything (now its too expensive to be used seriously); - turn oil into nylon stockings or nylon stockings into oil (or whatever you fancy); - send off any offensive material into outer space; - mass-separate any radio-active material into its components and use them industrially; - blow the worst components to smithereens in an accellerator; - radiate the resulting thermal pollution off into space; .... Many good solutions nowadays are rejected because they are not economically feasable; once we have fusion energy, they will be. It is like they say in business, "The first million is the most difficult". I suppose we have another 50 or 100 years to get there, so at it, folks! Dick Grune Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam "and my name isn't Richard"
mikevp@proper.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (08/14/84)
<what blank line?> Fusion certainly sounds good, but there are some real questions as to whether it can be made practical. The intense neutron bombardment that it would deliver to the internal structure of the plant is likely to cause structural problems: If you have to rebuild the plant every couple of months, it isn't likely to pay for itself. That same neutron bombardment will make those internal parts radioactive, though they aren't as long- lived as some of the actinides produced in fission plants. And it is by no means proven that "break even" is possible with current technology, much less useful amounts of power. That's the big problem: We are already in trouble as far as our electrial generation capacity goes. The anti-nukes make a big deal over the fact that there are no new orders for nuclear plants. That's true, but the whole truth is that there are no new orders for >any< kind of power plants, except for a few wind, solar, etc, which produce little dribbles of power. With the long lead times for getting a plant on line, we are going to have shortages, brownouts, and blackouts in the 90's. Can we wait for fusion? If you are hoping that fusion will be safe enough to calm the fears of the people who are waxing hysterical over the alleged dangers of fission plants, I wouldn't count on that either. I have seen some articles and heard some stuff from Berkely already which makes me pretty sure that the scare campaigns are being readied just in case fusion does pan out. Let me try this quote out on you: I got it from someone who claims he got it from one of his physics proffessors at UC Berkely. "Fusion plants use and release tritium, which is, next to plutonium, the worst thing you can put in your body. It goes straight to your DNA, then when it decays, *pow*, one broken DNA chain." Sure, that's absurd. But no more absurd than what is being peddled about fission plants. The real argument is not for or against fission or fusion. It is whether or not we are going to have the kind of technological civilization that uses electrical power in any quantity. The "saFety" issue is just a red herring, though lots of people have been taken in by the scare tactics and are concerned about safety.
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (08/30/84)
Microwaves do interesting things to the human body. Try getting
in front of a weather/air_traffic radar dish sometime and see
what happens when it swings around and hits you with the beam.
(don't stay there too long, okay kiddies?)
Another interesting, and less fun thing is that due to the geometry,
etc. of the body, they tend to concentrate in two areas. One area
is the head (literally bakes your brain!) and I'll let you guess
the other fun area. (hint: are you planning on having children?)
Let's not even mention cataracts, ok?
If "feeling warm" were the worst thing that microwaves did to you,
they'd be real handy. (especially in January!)
Makes you feel real safe going into those stores with the microwave
motion-detector-alarm-syatems that they leave blasting away all day,
doesn't it?
bye now!
--
_____
/_____\ how in blue blazes do they expect a EE to cook on a gas stove?
/_______\
|___| Snoopy
____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert