[nebelbon]

(Original post by Student2806)
Fusion power station and fast...development don't really go together. They were saying in the 70s that commercial energy generation by fusion would be occurring by the turn of the 21st Century. Now they're saying it could still be another century away. Despite continued huge investment, commercial fusion generation is still beyond our technological limits.
By all means let's continue funding R&D, but let's not jump the gun and throw money at something that's still beyond us.

It isn't beyond us, we have already created a plasma that lasted for 3 minutes, there is no way to predict how long until a break through. We need to invest much more.

[nebelbon]

(Original post by Birchington)
Fusion has potential and requires further R and D funding but I would advocate prioritising investment in tidal power. This is a massive untapped energy supply and we already have the technology to source it. Fusion still requires massive investment and development.

Fusion has the biggest potential of all alternative energy sources. Tidal power already exists and it is used to produce electricity already, it doesn't need any more money. Tidal, solar and wind are temporary solutions until Fusion power is taking seriously.

[nebelbon]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
I agree, there will be a need for a mediating power source between fossil fuels and fission, whether that's sustainable or fission power, I don't know. But priority needs to go to shifting the source of our country's power to home-sourced methods. The photovoltaic industry still needs boosting, despite the government's attempts to boost sales in that area. Once we've made sure that we're not going to die when the oil becomes ridiculously expensive, then we can put all our efforts into fusion power. There should still be more capital put into the R&D of the concept, though.

I don't see why we should push any more money into these other 'green ideas', solar power is ineffective and can't ever replace anything because it doesn't produce enough power.
Wind turbines are pointless, the people behind their designs have said themselves they are inefficient and need to be completely redesigned for them to be a viable alternative. They just want more money.
Instead of giving them more money, give it to Fusion research. Solar and wind will never be able to provide the gap when fossil fuels run out. Fusion could.

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by nebelbon)
I don't see why we should push any more money into these other 'green ideas', solar power is ineffective and can't ever replace anything because it doesn't produce enough power.
Wind turbines are pointless, the people behind their designs have said themselves they are inefficient and need to be completely redesigned for them to be a viable alternative. They just want more money.
Instead of giving them more money, give it to Fusion research. Solar and wind will never be able to provide the gap when fossil fuels run out. Fusion could.

Actually a solar power solution that is sited publicly, rather than privately, would work.

The issue is getting space for 'solar farms' - but if we take people's roofs into account then suddenly we have all the real estate we need. Sun power systems are efficient enough as well, water-heating solutions are 75% efficient, though photovoltaics are only around 20-30%. But if you take away the need to heat water, suddenly the demands are a lot less. So covering a roof with 70% water heating, and 30% with electricity generation, is easily enough to sustain the house it's built on top of.

[nebelbon]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
Actually a solar power solution that is sited publicly, rather than privately, would work.

The issue is getting space for 'solar farms' - but if we take people's roofs into account then suddenly we have all the real estate we need. Sun power systems are efficient enough as well, water-heating solutions are 75% efficient, though photovoltaics are only around 20-30%. But if you take away the need to heat water, suddenly the demands are a lot less. So covering a roof with 70% water heating, and 30% with electricity generation, is easily enough to sustain the house it's built on top of.

It would take up a lot of space. The cost of doing this for every house would be colossal and houses aren't the only things that require power. What about flats, skyscrapers and factories. Solar power isn't that efficient in our country in particular the figures would be much less.

Also in the time it would take to implement all of this and set everything up, fusion power could be commercially available. It just wouldn't work using solar power.

Solar power needs fossil fuel power as well, nothing apart from a calculator can run entirely on solar power.

[MacDaddi]

Aye, I am passionate about nuclear power and have attended lectures on the future of fusion and believe it is possible in 30 years

[Rakas21]

(Original post by nebelbon)

Invest money for research and development of Nuclear Fusion Power Stations

Petition to invest and develop Nuclear Fusion Power Stations

This petition...

Nuclear Fusion Power Stations are sustainable, emission free, waste free and the way forward in the production. It uses 'light' atoms that are not dangerous and don't produce any radioactive waste and once they have been started they can theoretically be creating power for the rest of time. This petition wants to ensure the guaranteed investment into the fast and important development of the Nuclear Fusion Power Station.

Welcome to the HOC.

I do agree that nuclear fusion is a great future development and from the evidence on this thread i can see great potential for ITER.

The question becomes then.. How much money do you want each year and for how long? (backed up with a link showing the need for increased UK contributions).

I will say that this TSR government has led the way in being proponents of Thorium nuclear fission and is committed to this as a medium term solution.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by nebelbon)
It would take up a lot of space. The cost of doing this for every house would be colossal and houses aren't the only things that require power. What about flats, skyscrapers and factories. Solar power isn't that efficient in our country in particular the figures would be much less.

Also in the time it would take to implement all of this and set everything up, fusion power could be commercially available. It just wouldn't work using solar power.

Solar power needs fossil fuel power as well, nothing apart from a calculator can run entirely on solar power.

Solar power is more than capable at current maximum efficiencies (just under 40% for the latest) of providing vast amounts of power even in the UK, unfortunately it would however cripple us economically given that a unit of electricity produced via solar is 5 times more expensive than that of Uranium nuclear power (which in turn is going to end up significantly more expensive than Thorium), additionally it would require micro solutions and so whilst it is a great idea for a house a business is never going to pay £100k to stick solar panels all over the roof of their offices and factories.

I do agree that wind is not viable and tidal cannot produce sufficient levels of electricity.

Geothermal (though limited by where you can find sufficient 'hot spots' in the UK, solar and nuclear are my preferred solutions.

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by nebelbon)
It would take up a lot of space. The cost of doing this for every house would be colossal and houses aren't the only things that require power. What about flats, skyscrapers and factories. Solar power isn't that efficient in our country in particular the figures would be much less.

Also in the time it would take to implement all of this and set everything up, fusion power could be commercially available. It just wouldn't work using solar power.

Solar power needs fossil fuel power as well, nothing apart from a calculator can run entirely on solar power.

No sustainable solution on it's own is meant to be the sole supplier of energy, but as a contributor to our energy diversity, it's a very good one.

The cost is a lot, yes, but compared to the house's price it's insignificant. You may be aware of a government scheme to kick-start economies of scale for photovoltaics, and it's been fairly successful. But anyway, didn't come here for an argument, solar power is a perfect stop-gap as we switch from one main fuel source to another

[nebelbon]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Welcome to the HOC.

I do agree that nuclear fusion is a great future development and from the evidence on this thread i can see great potential for ITER.

The question becomes then.. How much money do you want each year and for how long? (backed up with a link showing the need for increased UK contributions).

I will say that this TSR government has led the way in being proponents of Thorium nuclear fission and is committed to this as a medium term solution.

Thanks for the welcome

I would say that £250,000,000 a year would be enough. We already have facilities built so this covers the upgrades and running costs.
It is hard to estimate a timeline, it could range from 5 years to 30 years. This doesn't mean we will only be able to use it to generate power after 30 years, it could be in use way before then.

This is a very good article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...search-funding
It explains how JET has shown fusion is possible and that we need to be in on the R&D. There can never be too much R&D.

Nuclear fission is a good source of energy, but it does have problems, the nuclear waste and the large amount of time to decommission plants. With fusion power stations it would take a matter of months.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by nebelbon)
Thanks for the welcome

I would say that £250,000,000 a year would be enough. We already have facilities built so this covers the upgrades and running costs.
It is hard to estimate a timeline, it could range from 5 years to 30 years. This doesn't mean we will only be able to use it to generate power after 30 years, it could be in use way before then.

This is a very good article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...search-funding
It explains how JET has shown fusion is possible and that we need to be in on the R&D. There can never be too much R&D.

Nuclear fission is a good source of energy, but it does have problems, the nuclear waste and the large amount of time to decommission plants. With fusion power stations it would take a matter of months.

Not sure on the decommissioning of plants but Thorium waste is Uranium-232 which can be used as a fuel in the Thorium plants so not a big issue.

Additionally i believe that a £1bn R+D increase has been passed and so i will discuss allocating this to ITER with the Chancellor in the budget and then progress to the bill stage.

[nebelbon]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Not sure on the decommissioning of plants but Thorium waste is Uranium-232 which can be used as a fuel in the Thorium plants so not a big issue.

Additionally i believe that a £1bn R+D increase has been passed and so i will discuss allocating this to ITER with the Chancellor in the budget and then progress to the bill stage.

Thorium is quite rare, and doesn't it come from Uranium when it decays?
Fission stations probably take in excess of 100 years, but there isn't anything radioactive in fusion so its only the physical dismantling time.

[Smack]

Yes, I support this. Until we really invest some serious shiz into the technology it'll always remain 20 years away.

[nebelbon]

(Original post by Smack)
Yes, I support this. Until we really invest some serious shiz into the technology it'll always remain 20 years away.

Exactly, people saying its still 20 years away that's because we still won't invest. How can something progress if there is no investment.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by nebelbon)
Thorium is quite rare, and doesn't it come from Uranium when it decays?
Fission stations probably take in excess of 100 years, but there isn't anything radioactive in fusion so its only the physical dismantling time.

Thorium is around four times more plentiful than Uranium, fertile rather than fissile and much more energy efficient.

[nebelbon]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Thorium is around four times more plentiful than Uranium, fertile rather than fissile and much more energy efficient.

It should be used to replace wind power but inevitably fusion should be the main energy producer.

[MacDaddi]

Aren't the pellets needed for fusion only made up of hydrogen or something like that?

[nebelbon]

(Original post by MacDaddi)
Aren't the pellets needed for fusion only made up of hydrogen or something like that?

Fusion uses deuterium and tritium these are isotopes of hydrogen. They use seawater as the fuel as deuterium is found naturally in the water.

[Observatory]

(Original post by nebelbon)
Fusion uses deuterium and tritium these are isotopes of hydrogen. They use seawater as the fuel as these two things are found naturally in the water.

Tritium isn't found in seawater, as it is unstable. It is produced from lithium, ideally as part of the fusion process, but it also happens naturally at a much lower rate.

[nebelbon]

(Original post by Observatory)
Tritium isn't found in seawater, as it is unstable. It is produced from lithium, ideally as part of the fusion process, but it also happens naturally at a much lower rate.

Thanks, edited above post accordingly.