How to blow up France

[meglamaniac]

It seems the EU is putting France forward as a site for the world's first experimental nuclear fusion reactor.
I can only hope things have come on a bit since the world's first nuclear FISSION reactor (this is what nuclear power stations currently use) - which was a rather jumbled affair built in a squash court in a university, and the "safety" cutoff was a man ready to stick a metal pole into the middle of it if it seemed to be getting too hot (the precursor to the control rods seen in current reactors).

Now, we should also bear in mind we've only ever managed to make fusion work in for any length of time in one form, and it's not a particularly useful one. For those of you who don't know, it's the fusion bomb (or H-bomb). And the only way to reach the temperatures needed to make an H-bomb work is to detonate a 'standard' nuclear fission bomb around it.

So, given that when this thing is built, it has to not only heat gas to 100 million degrees centigrade but also contain it AND stop it from becoming the worlds largest H-bomb to date, maybe we should start waving goodbye to Paris.

If, on the other hand it works, we have a cheap (after initial setup) reliable source of energy with a nearly inexaustable fuel supply (it uses hydrodgen - easily extracted from water and certain metals). On top of that, it's supposed to be extremely efficient (one kg of hydrogen would produce the same ammount of energy as 10,000 tonnes of fossil fuel) and it produces a lot less nuclear waste than fission.

We shall see I suppose...

[Apothos]

Interesting, have a link?

edit: np, found one.

[NEWSBOT3]

i hve no objections to the possible destruction of france.

[Rids]

So, either we get a cheap, inexhaustable source of energy, or 34 million dead french people, win win situation.

[NEWSBOT3]

actually we already have the tech. this is just a test to see if it is commerically viable.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

if we blow up france does that mean we can sail great britain down south a bit to fill the void? would be nice to have some good weather

[Androme]

[Leshy]

If France gets blown to bits, the next site will have to be in Germany. All for the good of the EU, of course.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

the "safety" cutoff was a man ready to stick a metal pole into the middle of it if it seemed to be getting too hot (the precursor to the control rods seen in current reactors).

As the astronaut told heuston before take-off

"Of course I'm bloody nervous. How would you feel sitting on top of a machine assembled by forty thousand lowest bidders?"

[cnaw]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Now, we should also bear in mind we've only ever managed to make fusion work in for any length of time in one form, and it's not a particularly useful one. For those of you who don't know, it's the fusion bomb (or H-bomb). And the only way to reach the temperatures needed to make an H-bomb work is to detonate a

ummmmm scientists have been able to research and experiment with fusion for a good many years via setups such as the University of Rochester's OMEGA laser system. Granted the blasts only last about a billionth of second.

[Radical Edward]

The method of fusion in a fustion reactor is very different to the method in an H-Bomb. in an H-Bomb they rely on a combination of extremely high pressure and temperature in order to get the hydrogen to fuse, and it is this combination that goes bang. However fusion reactors do not do this. they rely alone on high temperature and weak interactions, and the plasma inside the reactor core is not really very dense at all. Should the reactor break in some way, the magnetic fields which confine the plasma are disrupted and the gas just runs into the walls. This will probably damage the reactor (even though it does happen alot, so the damage is not that severe) however it won't blow it up. Tokamaks like JET (Joint European Torus) and START (Spherical Tight Aspect Ratio Torus) have been running for ages and none have exploded yet.

cnaw mentions another technology-laser ignition. This is closer to the principal of a nuclear bomb, though it only uses tiny pellets of deuterium and tritium. Again laser technology is not useful to produce a very big bang. In order to produce a big explosion, you more or less need to compress a large amount of deuterium and tritium into a very small space, this is, if I am correct, why H-Bombs are detonated using a plutonium shell, the big nuke is seeded by a slightly smaller one

I hope this has been of help to you, sorry if it disappoints, but France won't explode over this!

[wu_trax]

so this means that all the billions of tax-money we spend on wind- and solar energy were wasted ?

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

France won't explode over this!

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Chrism]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

so this means that all the billions of tax-money we spend on wind- and solar energy were wasted ?

Who cares? We're going to get to blow up France, be happy.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Chrism

Who cares? We're going to get to blow up France, be happy.

id say france gets new investments and know-how that is worth quite a lot for free. if i would hate the french i wouldnt be all that happy

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

so this means that all the billions of tax-money we spend on wind- and solar energy were wasted ?

Yeah, because reducing some of the risk we're placing our civilisation should obviously be defined as a waste.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by Leshy

If France gets blown to bits, the next site will have to be in Germany. All for the good of the EU, of course.

when france gets blown up that tidal wave will flood the netherlands... it gets better the more i think about it...

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, because reducing some of the risk we're placing our civilisation should obviously be defined as a waste.

if there now is a cheap and clean way to produce lots of energy, there wont be any need for wind- or solar energy or did i miss something?
ofc we still could sell the technology to developing countries who cant effort such an reactor, but we wont need it anymore.

[meglamaniac]

What you missed is that it's still hideously expensive to set up, and probably won't be anywhere near commercially ready til 2010 at the earliest.
On top of that, you still need some non-fusion power somewhere - heating gas to 100 million degrees is going to need a bit more work than rubbing two sticks together.
Also, in the unlikely event that if/when we move over to these things, they all have to be taken offline for some reason, there has to be some power around to start them again.

Excluding monitoring equipment etc, fossil power stations obviously just need to be relit, nuclear fission power stations "just work" (shove the fuel in and it starts by itself when you take the control rods out) but wind farms don't need monitoring or relighting or any fiddling with control rods.

Also, construction is expected to start on sea-based wind farms soonish (at least one allready exists) which pretty much removes the objections to them at the moment (they take up too much land and "don't look nice").

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if there now is a cheap and clean way to produce lots of energy, there wont be any need for wind- or solar energy or did i miss something?

I think you're missing my point. Having fire insurance for your house, is not a waste, even if your house doesn't burn down.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

so this means that all the billions of tax-money we spend on wind- and solar energy were wasted ?

yes

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think you're missing my point. Having fire insurance for your house, is not a waste, even if your house doesn't burn down.

However, spending billions researching and constructing an elaborate system of mechanical levers and pulleys that work to detect if a fire occurs in your house, just because your family has an irrational fear of battery operated smoke detectors and refuses to use them, might be considered a waste.

nuclear power is the future mang.

[wu_trax]

im sure thegreens will find SOME problem with it though. its nuclear power and because of that it must be the evil :/

[Leshy]

Can't we just build a Type I Dyson Sphere and be done with it?

[Proteus]

Can't we just nuke France and claim we were aiming at the Middle East?

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Also, construction is expected to start on sea-based wind farms soonish (at least one allready exists) which pretty much removes the objections to them at the moment (they take up too much land and "don't look nice").

that is not the only objection to wind energy. it relies on (oh wonder) wind. wind speeds can be too low BUT ALSO too high i.e. during storms for them to operate.
a country relying heavily on wind energy can get into serious trouble during storms and times of high enery usage.

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Can't we just build a Type I Dyson Sphere and be done with it?

We would need some kind of grav-plating first... Dyson spheres are notoriously hard to spin for gravity. And a functional von Neumann machine to disassemble Jupiter and reassemble it into the sphere.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

On top of that, you still need some non-fusion power somewhere - heating gas to 100 million degrees is going to need a bit more work than rubbing two sticks together.

tbh i don't think so. if it is commercially viable, then it should produce enough energy to keep itself hot and produce MWs of power for surrounding areas.

petroleum will still be good for making plastic, and solar power will still be good for cars (and objects not installed in the power grid) but that's it.

[Bunga]

How could cars be powered by solar power? Better to use fuel cells, surely?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

nuclear power is the future mang.

Almost certainly. I don't really care if it is to be honest, but it's not been demonstrated that current fission power production can realistically replace fossil fuels in all their uses. Fusion is obviously another matter (although some of the same issues apply).

If we somehow managed to mess this up (i.e. find out that we have no easy replacement to fossil fuels) then our civilisation could be irrevocably ****ed. (I'm thinking more the socio-political fallout, not the actual direct effects). So therefore, I don't really consider it a waste.

If in ten years time we find some sort of magic way of extracting massive amounts of power from carrots, I'm not going to consider investing in Solar, Nuclear or whatever as a 'waste'. Basically, it's good to have a backup if the future of civilisation is at stake.

There's the traditional argument over whether tax money should go on it obviously (slightly different issue) - but if we sidestep that for a minute, there's plenty of private sector research. Again, non-wasteful (in my eyes).

[Vermillion]

Actually there have been Fusion reactors online for ages, the technology was pionerred by the Soviet Union, which is why fusion reactors of the same type still bear the soviet name of tokamak (toroidalnya kamera ee magnetnaya katushka - torus-shaped magnetic chamber). Ther are several in Russia, though I think they may have been shut down, there is one at Oxford and one at Princeton, and at least 2 in Japan.

The problem is that all fusion power plants to date have been net consumers of electricity. The tokamak design is a wonderful design for an experimental reactor, and allows for many different kinds of tests and trials, but nobody has yet built a sustainable fusion reactor that is a net energy producer. That, I believe, is what they are trying to build in France.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Bunga

How could cars be powered by solar power? Better to use fuel cells, surely?

fuel cells are heavyish and eventually run out. obviously solar is never going to be good by itself, but in combination with an efficient and moderately sized chemical energy storage setup (like your fuel cell) it could make for a very impressive car.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There's the traditional argument over whether tax money should go on it obviously (slightly different issue) - but if we sidestep that for a minute, there's plenty of private sector research. Again, non-wasteful (in my eyes).

i cringe at the thought of the first viable fusion nuclear power setup getting patented by a private entity.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Dyson spheres are notoriously hard to spin for gravity.

I'm not talking about a Type II Dyson sphere.

[Noctu]

Hoover?

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by Leshy

I'm not talking about a Type II Dyson sphere.

When has the human race ever held back before? Its all-out or nothing. No... its fully enclosed biosphere or nothing.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Bunga

No... its fully enclosed biosphere or nothing.

[Demon Dave]

i would just like to point out that if this goes belly-up, not only will france be destroyed (good thing) but probably the rest of europe aswell (probably a good thing too, if Britain wasn't so damn close). hello Chernobyl (spelling?) x10

ps. mmmm nuclear winter

[Bunga]

Fusion reactors don't suffer melt-downs. They can't. So... no.

Goodbye Chernobyl. Or Tjernobyl, depending on country and preference.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

i would just like to point out that if this goes belly-up, not only will france be destroyed (good thing) but probably the rest of europe aswell (probably a good thing too, if Britain wasn't so damn close). hello Chernobyl (spelling?) x10

ps. mmmm nuclear winter

I alwady told you it won't happen dude.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I alwady told you it won't happen dude.

Hey physics boy, is the reason fusion power plants are a net consumer of electricity the fact it requires huge temperatures to be created to force the two atoms together and overcome the weak nuclear force (or one of them anyways), and if so why do you need really really high temperatures (and does this have anything to do with the temperatures that existed nearer to the big bang when all the forces were united or did I just make that up off the top of my head)?

[Radical Edward]

well you have to keep em hot, for pretty much thereasons you describe. nowehere near the temps at the big bang though.... go to CERN if you want that sort of temperature. (actually it is only the EM field you are trying to overcome)

[Marilyn Manson]

You'll be laughing on the other side of your face when I'm elected French President, and then stage a coup, and declare myself....

Oh, bugger, that's already happened. And I'm not related to Napoleon. And I'm not a womanising, puffed-up, political amateur.*










* Well, two outta three ain't bad.

[Intrepid00]

I made cold-fussion in a coffee cup last week...

pft.


(who remembers that?)

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I alwady told you it won't happen dude.

You did? where

[King_Sparticus]

Originally Posted by cnaw

Flogging Molly from Their song Black Friday Rule

First person i've seen on irc/on pa forums who's head of Flogging Molly. Damm they are a class band, especially live

[vampire_lestat]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

it produces a lot less nuclear waste than fission

when you say a lot less do you in fact mean none (its 100% clean if done proplerly, and bloody safe too, i love you new scientist )

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

I made cold-fussion in a coffee cup last week...

pft.


(who remembers that?)

Flieschmann and Ponns wasn't it?

ps. lestat, your sig is MUCH too big. Just cut out the immense amount of space in the dilbert quote for gods sake.

pps. Fusion is

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Fusion is

Fusion is for wimps. I want antimatter! :snowman:

[vampire_lestat]

antimatter is too hardcore fore some. All the world needs is cold fusion really .

what would work is induced currents in superconductors with huge magnets , thats really green, and nothing blows up .

[I'm Not Grimble]

Magnets you say?*









*HELLO PAGE 2