Test of China's new thermonuclear fusion reactor successful

[ECH1969]

Chinese scientists on Thursday claimed success in conducting the first test of an experimental thermonuclear fusion reactor, which replicates the same energy generation process that fuels the sun.

The experimental advanced superconducting tokamak (east) fusion device, nicknamed "Artificial Sun", was tested at the Institute of Plasma Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Hefei, capital city of East China's Anhui province. East is an upgrade of China's first-generation Tokamak device and the first of its kind in operation in the world, Chinese scientists said.

Unlike traditional nuclear fission reactors, which split atoms to create energy and produce dangerous radioactive waste, east imitates the energy-producing process of the sun, generating energy and producing no greenhouse gas emissions and low levels of radioactive waste.

The reactor will provide a cheaper, safer, cleaner and endless energy resource, reducing the world's dependence on fossil fuels, Xinhua news agency quoted Chinese scientists as saying.

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=325892&sid=WOR

[ThomCat]

1. Only time will tell whether or not this is really

safer or cleaner. Never trust industry to evaluate itself.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Right.

Scientists have been saying for literally decades that it is safer and cleaner. But we can't trust those pesky scientists, can we?

[ThomCat]

10. Right. I'm bashing scientists. Exactly

:eyes:

Industry pays scientists to say a lot of things that aren't true. So while I trust science, I don't have a blind knee-jerk trust is anything that gets attributed to a scientist. I want to know who he works for.

And just because it might be safer and cleaner than current nuclear power that doesn't mean it's safe and clean.

You go ahead and live next door to something that's slightly safer and cleaner than current nuclear reactors. Trust your family to the marketting and public relations material. They've been saying for litterally decades that it's safe and clean. You trust those scientists, right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Since there isn't a fusion reactor industry...

I frankly have no idea what you're talking about. It's scientists that have been saying for decades now that fusion is clean.

[ThomCat]

13. Really?

Certainly nuclear technology hasn't been clean yet. And while I know that there is the expectation that fusion will be "cleaner" that isn't the same thing as clean. I said that only time will tell, and that has always been the case. Scientists know the science, but the engineers implement it, and nothing is ever as clean in practice as in theory.

So who are these scientists who claim to see the future and say that fusion reactors will be clean? And where is the evidence of this. Wouldn't that be the same kind of speculation that has proceeded every major advance in technology?

It's always funny when people spout their blind faith in marketing and public relations. Put someone in a white coat into a comercial and you'll believe anything.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Do you even know what fusion is?

As opposed to fission?

[ThomCat]

15. Duh.

Of course.

And what does that have to do with the odds that fusion will somehow, miraculously, have no environmental implications?

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I think a reaction of 2 hydrogen atoms that produces energy and helium

is by definition cleaner than splitting uranium or plutonium, and also cleaner than burning fossil fuels. "NO" environmental implications? That should be looked into. But god knows we need some new energy solutions. Duh.

[ThomCat]

20. I agree with you.

But wind and solar are certain to be far cleaner than nuclear.

It is not as if 2 hydrogen atoms meet in the middle of field, sponstaneously fuse, and magically give us clean energy. There is going to be a huge containment problem, and infrastructure needed to produce and maintain the whole system.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Wind energy, eh?

Don't those windmills kill an awful lot of birds?

[ThomCat]

24. The older turbines do, yes.

But safe models exist, and the republicans are blocking attempts to mandate the safe models because it would cost current wind-farm owners money to upgrade.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Fusion IS cleaner than fission. That's not speculation, that's science.

Now, if you think all our current energy answers are hunky dory, or you think the human race is going to spontaneously decide to move back into caves, clearly you should be opposed to any new ideas, research, or science in general.

[ThomCat]

19. Nice straw man.

Given that I never implied any desire not to invest in new technology and I'm certainly not a luddite.

But nice try.

Of course, if people blindingly implement new technology without any concern for what the real environmental impact is going to be then we'll keep destroying the environment just like we have been doing for the past 150 years.

As I said above, cleaner does not equal clean. Cleaner technology can still destroy the environment if everyone just assumes it is clean and spouts off nonsense like I'm seeing here.

I refuse to wear the rose colored glasses. Every technology has a cost, and we should start learning how to honestly evaluate that cost before we blinding embrace each new thing. Yes, I think fusion is going to be inevitable. But I also think we will also see some environmental disasters because of it.

1. There is still significant radiation involved.
2. Containment of the reaction is not likely to be foolproof or absolute.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Speaking of strawmen...

What's this about?

"And what does that have to do with the odds that fusion will somehow, miraculously, have no environmental implications?"

[ThomCat]

22. Hey, I'm not the one arguing that fusion is going to be clean.

It's your fairy tale. You explain it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Why don't you try explaining how it's going to be dirty?

You keep making this assertion, and fail to provide evidence to back it up.

[ThomCat]

28. The amount of energy that is going to be produced

has to be contained. No containment is perfect or completely stable. So that is one obvious environmental hazard.

There is going to be some radiation involved. Though nobody is completely sure how much, nobody is claiming that all that is produced is heat. So right there this is inherently not a clean source of energy. The sun may be clean because it's so far away, but producing a bit of the sun right here on earth is different. We don't have millions of miles and an ozone layer as protection.

We still don't know how big an infrastructure it takes to produce and maintain a stable fusion reaction. An larger infrastructure is going to have environmental impact.

My whole point is that nobody has defined what the environmental impact will be and only time will tell how big it will be. Fools seem to be insisting that there is no environmental impact. That is what needs to be proven.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. Nobody is insisting that it will have no impact.

What I and others have been insisting is that the actual physical laws of the universe dicatate that it will be inherently cleaner than either fission or fossil fuels.

[ThomCat]

32. I'm not debating that.

I agree that it's cleaner than fission. But that doesn't mean it's clean.

And an accident with a fusion reactor probably going to be devestating regardless of how clean it is. So in terms of environmental impact only time will tell how dangerous fusion will really be.

Theoretical science is very different from hands-on application. In hands-on application things get messy and complicated.

[patricia92243]

25. What is a "straw man?" I have seen this term on several other occasions a

and cannot figure out what it means. Somehow I think it is derogatory, but I'm not even sure why I think this.

[ThomCat]

29. A straw man argument

is when you make us a weak, easily defeated argument and attribute it to your opponent.

"You said this, and that's obviously wrong, so you are wrong."

It is a falacious debating tactic because it is a way of debating a point you know is wrong without debating the actual points and issues your opponent brought up. It's a way of avoiding the subject.

For example, when I bring up the obvious environmental issues with Fusion, like containment and infrastructure, and someone accusing me of being against science. Arguing that I'm wrong for being against science is a strawman because I am not against science. And by arguing that I'm against science they are trying to win a false argument as a way of ignoring the real issues.

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. The avatar in your sig is appropriate for this debate.

There is no question fusion is clean. It does not "release radiation".

The problem with fusion power is that if commonly used it will allow
humans to devour an infinite amount of the world's resources without
"side effects".

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. Not really.

Regardless of what fusion power might do for carbon emissions, the planet still needs to maintain healthy ecosystems to survive. Reducing carbon emissions is not the cure-all for our problems. We will still have resource problems, even if fusion power comes on line in a way that can replace all other forms of energy production. And we will still need to maintain healthy ecosystems - especially forest ecosystems, for the planet to be "livable" for us.

Unfortunately, very few people seem to understand this concept. There is still a tendency to view clean energy as a cure-all for our woes, but the truth is that intelligent resource management will still be required, regardless of our energy source. There is no easy answer.

[Swede]

2. How do they contain the energy emitted?

Xinhua cited the scientists as saying that deuterium and tritium atoms had been fused together at a temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius for nearly three seconds.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Interesting.

More from the Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/28/chinese_fusion_reactor/

[ECH1969]

4. yup

[WePurrsevere]

5. From what DH just told me & I just read on Wiki this sounds a whole lot

better then the current fission tech being used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

[Junkdrawer]

6. China also wants to mine the moon for Helium-3...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/06/china_goes_to_the_moon_for_helium_3_by_2024.html

Something tells me that they don't want to be dependent on the soon-to-be-US-controlled Middle East for energy.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Well, at least someone is thinking outside of the box for answers.

A century of wars on an overheated planet over ever-dwindling supplies of environmentally unsound fossil fuels doesn't sound terribly appealing to me.

[Taxloss]

27. I doubt the US will ever be able to wholly control the Middle East.

With more than 150,000 troops they have trouble controlling the Green Zone alone.

But US policy does seem hell-bent on plunging the region into so much chaos that it won't be producing oil for a while, so your point stands. China wants energy independence. What sensible country wouldn't?

[patricia92243]

7. If it is true, just think of the many problems on earth that COULD be solve

solved. Of course, politicians that are afraid their owners will loose money will block it.

It could make us 100% NOT dependent on anybody for energy, thus our foreign policy would be so different we would not recognize it.

Huge news for the whole of civilization. Hope we will be hearing a lot more on this.

PS - too bad it was not the USA with the technology. But we don't seem to do much of anything these days.

[LSK]

9. exactly, this is good news

[Vidar]

12. Great news if it pans out.