[cvs_s28]

Would they ever build a fusion reactor in Britain, or any country if they got it working?

Or would people be to woried by a building that has the potential to be more dangerous than nuclear fission?

[cvs_s30]

There are many disadvantages to buliding fussion reactors however the wolrd, when it comes to energy, seems to be all about eco-friendlyness and fussion gives the wolrd just that with no, or very little co2 given out, and it would only take 2 reactors to power the world.

Where to build them is a good question, but why not build them in the middle of no where, the sahara, salt planes, even the ocean build them miles under the ground so it reduces the risk from terroist attacks and many other potencial threats.

[cvs_s23]

If fusion could be sustained and fed the worlds energy needs on just 2 reactors surely the issue of terrorism would be less than having numerous fission reactors? And if they were to build them in the middle of nowhere then this would decrease it further. As a result security could be focused singally on the 2 plants rather than on the many fission reactors currently in opperation.
Another possible issue would be who would have final control of the reactors if they were built? There are probably several countries that would be uncomfortable with other countries total control over where the power generated is directed and the end location of the waste products.

[cvs_s30]

Thankfully fussion has much less waste than fission which is another advantage to have it. The way to deal with the problem about who has final control is already in place, the UK for example is reliant on the middle for its oil and they could decide to one day stop all production which would destroy our economy as well as many other, that is why we have policies that prevent the oil ministers from doing such a thing and we would simply do the same with nuclear fussion.

[cvs_s28]

fusion reactors may produce less toxic waste but if the reactor is too unstable then the heat is self-sustained and can create a mini sun which would heat the atmosphere and destroy the earth.

this is almost imposible though because they can only just about sustain it for 30 seconds at the moment.

[cvs_s28]

fusion reactors may produce less toxic waste but if the reactor is too unstable then the heat is self-sustained and can create a mini sun which would heat the atmosphere and destroy the earth.

this is almost imposible though because they can only just about sustain it for 30 seconds at the moment.

[cvs_s30]

This is a potencial problem however the research centre ULI have managed to prove that they are able to create a perfectly stable enviroment for the 100 millon degree plasma using the TOKAMAK design, where the plasma is suspended within a magnetic field within a chamber that is lined that material that are able to cope with ultra high temperatures. The research that ULI has carried out has been so sucsessful that plans have been madee to have the first reactor online by the year 2035.

[cvs_s28]

the problem is if there is a power cut the magnetic field goes down, you can argue like you have mensioned that the materials can withstand the temperatures, but if its in contact with the mini "sun" then after a short period of time it would burn through it anyway, this is a problem if the mini "sun" is self-sustained in which it would burn through the material and destroy the earth.

no material can stop a sun, because the sun creates materials from smaller elements. It would be like trying to hold back a black hole with a shoe, it will kinda work to start with, but when it starts getting bigger (or closer and in contact) then it just doesn't work.

[cvs_s30]

Yes i agree with this.

However for the mini sun to sustain itself it would need a fuel, and that fuel it the radioactive materials we feed into it. Therefore if we carefully control the amount of fuel keeping it within a vaccum should this not solve the problem? As mentioned scientists have already proven that they are able to control the reaction, the problem arrises when it comes to breaches within the chamber which would allow the reaction to feed of the atomosphere, this turing into another sun buring everything up.

[cvs_s28]

but if it cant get fuel, that makes it more dangerous.

when a sun is near death, it triples its size in a desperate attempt to survive. to avoid this we would have to house the reactor in a area of low cosmic radiation, and low radioactive materials in the ground. this would hugely decrease the amount of places we could put them, some countries might not even be able to house them anywhere!

[cvs_s30]

I agree with this. which is why location is a key aspect. but as the world would only need two powerplants not everycountry needs one. The best place potencially could be deep under ground in the Sahara desser or under ground on the salt planes.

It is difficult but there would a places on earth cable of housing a power plant.

[cvs_s24]

i don't think that nuclear power is really the way forward. yes, it is a way of producing electricity but with the risks attached to it i don't think it is worth it. look at chenobyl, if a disactor like that happened with one of the nuclear power plants that would be built in the UK, then the whole of Britain would have to be evacuated and there would be repercussions for generations. i think that before nuclear power is decided as the definate source of power, the government and scientists should look more into renewable sources of power and try and accomodate more weathers and natural occurances to generate electricity.

[cvs_s23]

If we are looking into the future to build fussion reactors why not look to space to place them? It would be costly but it would definatly be safer than on Earth and waste can be kept out there.

[cvs_s28]

cvs_s24 and cvs_s23, both are your arguments are looking at fission reactors, first of all fusion produces no waste, secondly if we placed fusion in space or salt pans (not planes) we would need massive amounts of cable.Thirdly Chenobal was the people working there being stupid and turning off safety devices, now a days it is less dangerous. the waste is most dangerous. Fourthly if you want to talk about fission please go to the decomisioning forum, not nuclear fusion!!!

Finally renewable resources are being used to make a solar panel in space, and have a cable going down, but to get the material to space they have to build an evelvator (sorry for spelling). it is in very early stages of making small models, but it might be up and running in 2030, a bit to late.

What other energy can we use that is a sensible idea (and not wind turbines, unless you plan on putting them in the ocean for more wind power)?