[Metrobeans]

P20 - Invest money for research and development of Nuclear Fusion Power Stations, nebelbon

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.

[Life_peer]

Aye! Sadly, the world's oil corporations would not allow this in real life.

[Rhadamanthus]

And to whom are you calling on to make the investments? This is not made clear in the wording.

[LETSJaM]

Brilliant idea.

<3 x

[Jarred]

Now I haven't studied physics for over two years, but the last thing I remember being taught on the matter is that nuclear fusion is over half a century from being even remotely viable on a commerical basis.

Fusion isn't as simple as fission. It's pretty damn easy to fire a little neutron at a heavy and unstable atom of uranium or radium and get it split down; it does this naturally anyway, accelerating a natural process is a piece of piss. But fusion is a whole other matter, fusing two atomic nuclei together is a whole other battle. It goes without saying that to do it you'd need vast, vast amounts of energy to a) Provide the activation energy for the process to even happen b) To keep the reactions going on long enough for it to be any use and c) Contain all of these processes in a safe environment (You can't just put up a sheet of glass and expect the science staff to be shielded, you've gotta have some serious stuff).

Quite frankly, fusion requires some really extreme conditions to occur. There's only one place where the amount of energy is high enough for that to happen naturally; stars. And I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that stars are fairly warm. To even produce energy of that magnitude is difficult. To then go on to produce more energy than you put in, profiting more money than you put in to get there in the first place is nigh on impossible. We just are not there yet. The French are trying something but its all on an experimental basis at the moment, you can't just amplify the size of laboratory experiments up to industrial level for a number of scientific reasons, and also even if you could I'd expect the costs would increase exponentially.

It's a nice idea but its not possible to use as a power source yet. Come back in 2062 and I'll be nice and abstain instead.

Anyone who votes Aye is saying "Yes, the Government can break the rules of science" But face the facts, it cannot. The Government can invest in fusion research (though I don't agree with that either) but it cannot build a fusion plant for decades yet.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Jarred)
Now I haven't studied physics for over two years, but the last thing I remember being taught on the matter is that nuclear fusion is over half a century from being even remotely viable on a commerical basis.

Fusion isn't as simple as fission. It's pretty damn easy to fire a little neutron at a heavy and unstable atom of uranium or radium and get it split down; it does this naturally anyway, accelerating a natural process is a piece of piss. But fusion is a whole other matter, fusing two atomic nuclei together is a whole other battle. It goes without saying that to do it you'd need vast, vast amounts of energy to a) Provide the activation energy for the process to even happen b) To keep the reactions going on long enough for it to be any use and c) Contain all of these processes in a safe environment (You can't just put up a sheet of glass and expect the science staff to be shielded, you've gotta have some serious stuff).

Quite frankly, fusion requires some really extreme conditions to occur. There's only one place where the amount of energy is high enough for that to happen naturally; stars. And I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that stars are fairly warm. To even produce energy of that magnitude is difficult. To then go on to produce more energy than you put in, profiting more money than you put in to get there in the first place is nigh on impossible. We just are not there yet. The French are trying something but its all on an experimental basis at the moment, you can't just amplify the size of laboratory experiments up to industrial level for a number of scientific reasons, and also even if you could I'd expect the costs would increase exponentially.

It's a nice idea but its not possible to use as a power source yet. Come back in 2062 and I'll be nice and abstain instead.

Anyone who votes Aye is saying "Yes, the Government can break the rules of science" But face the facts, it cannot. The Government can invest in fusion research (though I don't agree with that either) but it cannot build a fusion plant for decades yet.

The proposed investment is initially to develop the technology, then to build the plants.

On the actual technology, just a few points:
1. Compared to temperatures achieved in the experimental JET reactor in oxfordshire, stars are not that hot.

2. The French effort you are referring to is ITER, a collaborative enterprise between the entire EU, USA, Japan, Russia, China and South Korea. It will cost roughly £12bn, the same estimated price as the 2012 olympic games.

3. Tokomak fusion is actually much safer and requires much less shielding and protective equipment for staff than uranium fission, as the materials involved are not inherently radioactive, while the plasma is contained in a powerful magnetic field and loses nearly all its energy if it comes into contact with the reactor casing (stabilising the magnetic fields to prevent this is one of the challenges facing the research team)

4. There is a good case for an additional UK project in this area, as the working practices of the EU led project tend to be restrictive and ignore creative thinking from the scientists (the small tight aspect ratio tokomak was designed in a pub near the JET project, as the scientists weren't allowed to work on a side project on the premises)

[RoryS]

Aye.

[Moleman1996]

Aye, definately the way forward, its a crime not to use them given our safe tectonic position as well.

[Jarred]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
The proposed investment is initially to develop the technology, then to build the plants.

On the actual technology, just a few points:
1. Compared to temperatures achieved in the experimental JET reactor in oxfordshire, stars are not that hot.

2. The French effort you are referring to is ITER, a collaborative enterprise between the entire EU, USA, Japan, Russia, China and South Korea. It will cost roughly £12bn, the same estimated price as the 2012 olympic games.

3. Tokomak fusion is actually much safer and requires much less shielding and protective equipment for staff than uranium fission, as the materials involved are not inherently radioactive, while the plasma is contained in a powerful magnetic field and loses nearly all its energy if it comes into contact with the reactor casing (stabilising the magnetic fields to prevent this is one of the challenges facing the research team)

4. There is a good case for an additional UK project in this area, as the working practices of the EU led project tend to be restrictive and ignore creative thinking from the scientists (the small tight aspect ratio tokomak was designed in a pub near the JET project, as the scientists weren't allowed to work on a side project on the premises)

Ok sure, the petition does ask for investment, and that is achievable, but the idea of building plants (which is the main focus of the petition) is not possible yet, the petition doesn't even recognise this, and thus as far as I am concerned people have been forced into voting in favour of something which is literally impossible to build at the moment. If it said "build a plant when the technology is commerically viable" then sure, it's understandable to vote aye (though on cost grounds I'd still vote nay). However, the wording of the petition implies that building a fusion plant is as easy, or maybe even easier, than building a fission plant and also implies we can do it now. But we cannot. That's not me just saying so because of cost, that's not me saying so because I don't want it to happen at the hand of the public sector, that's me saying so because it's literally not possible to do at the moment. The petition writer may as well have asked us to build a power plant that uses the horn of a unicorn as a power source.

[misterxninja]

I want renewable green energy and see a green energy direction as a way to set up and develop a new market they will contribute to our deficit reduction and economic rise to the top again.

For all those confused by this, please go through old bills and see my Green Growth Bill and Green Industry Bill from two years ago, they are in the archives. I want a Green energy solution not so much because I'm an environmentalist but because I see it as a massive business opportunity for the UK to pioneer and reap the rewards from.

[RoryS]

(Original post by misterxninja)
please go through old bills and see my Green Growth Bill and Green Industry Bill from two years ago, they are in the archives.

Could we repeal these bills to help legislate this petition?

[misterxninja]

(Original post by RoryS)
Could we repeal these bills to help legislate this petition?

They were never passed, but there the most left-wing thing I ever did some could say, you might like it. Might make you see the profit and market potential and how much better off it is than nuclear longer term. Just some food for thought, check em out.

[eff01]

Aye definitely, but I would like to stress that nuclear alone is not the solution. We should looks at a whole range of renewable energy sources if we seriously want to tackle carbon emissions.

[RoryS]

(Original post by misterxninja)
They were never passed, but there the most left-wing thing I ever did some could say, you might like it. Might make you see the profit and market potential and how much better off it is than nuclear longer term. Just some food for thought, check em out.

Okay

[Mechie]

(Original post by Life_peer)
Aye! Sadly, the world's oil corporations would not allow this in real life.

What do you mean by that? Oil is rarely used to fuel power stations, in fact there's only one in the UK (Peterhead Power Station, if you're interested).

[Metrobeans]

The aye's have it! The aye's have it!