Nuclear fusion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Fusion as an energy option: fix typos
(→Fusion as an energy option: fix typos) |
|||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
== Fusion as an energy option == | == Fusion as an energy option == | ||
Fusion undoubtedly offers some important advantages. Once operative, energy supply would be virtually limitless; greenhouse gas exhaust would be zero; nuclear waste and the danger of nuclear accidents would be strongly reduced (with respect to fission power plants), and nuclear proliferation problems would be small or | Fusion undoubtedly offers some important advantages. Once operative, energy supply would be virtually limitless; greenhouse gas exhaust would be zero; nuclear waste and the danger of nuclear accidents would be strongly reduced (with respect to fission power plants), and nuclear proliferation problems would be small or non-existent. On the other hand, there are complications due to the very complex technology required and the radioactive activation of the reactor vessel components. | ||
A significant part of the latter complications are due to the projected use of D-T fuels (deuterium-tritium) in the first-generation fusion power plants, which is the fuel that is easiest to ignite, but which leads to intense neutron radiation. One may speculate that, if successful, a second generation of fusion power plants can be developed that runs on other fuel mixtures (such as D-D), leading to a reduction of the problems associated with radioactivity. | A significant part of the latter complications are due to the projected use of D-T fuels (deuterium-tritium) in the first-generation fusion power plants, which is the fuel that is easiest to ignite, but which leads to intense neutron radiation. One may speculate that, if successful, a second generation of fusion power plants can be developed that runs on other fuel mixtures (such as D-D), leading to a reduction of the problems associated with radioactivity. | ||
Differing from some other energy options, the implementation of energy generation by fusion is not immediate, and subject to the solution of a number of technical problems. The current consensus | Differing from some other energy options, the implementation of energy generation by fusion is not immediate, and subject to the solution of a number of technical problems. The current consensus is that while the technical challenges are formidable, they can be overcome. Thus, the main discussion regarding fusion as an energy option is not about its technical feasibility, but about the timescales for implementation. | ||
<ref>[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2005.08.015 C. LLewellyn Smith, Fusion Engineering and Design '''74''', Issues 1-4 (2005) 3-8]</ref> | <ref>[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2005.08.015 C. LLewellyn Smith, Fusion Engineering and Design '''74''', Issues 1-4 (2005) 3-8]</ref> | ||
While increased investment and improved focus of the current research efforts can certainly help to speed up progress, even under optimal conditions the time needed to achieve the first delivery of fusion-produced energy to the electricity grid is considerable, and it is unlikely that fusion can contribute to solving the short-term energy crisis (in the coming decades). Fusion must therefore be considered an energy option for the medium to long term. | While increased investment and improved focus of the current research efforts can certainly help to speed up progress, even under optimal conditions the time needed to achieve the first delivery of fusion-produced energy to the electricity grid is considerable, and it is unlikely that fusion can contribute to solving the short-term energy crisis (in the coming decades). Fusion must therefore be considered an energy option for the medium to long term. | ||