ChatterBank1 min ago
fusion
If,or when we get a fusion reactor up and running will it still take more energy to run it than what it will put out?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Have a look here:
http://www.inference....ir/c24/page_172.shtml
http://www.inference....ir/c24/page_172.shtml
The first sustained fusion burn happened at JET in Oxfordshire in 1997 - in was 0.5 seconds long.
http://www.jet.efda.org/faq/about-jet/
This took more energy than it produced because JET was an experimental device never designed to do so.
Currently ITER (JET's sucessor) is under construction in France. This will be able to generate more energy than it creates but will not be a commercial powerstation.
http://www.jet.efda.o.../iter-and-the-future/
ITER's task is to sort out some of the engineering (as opposed to science) problems before DEMO can be built, probably in Japan which would be the first demonstration fusion power plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO
Timelines in above link
http://www.jet.efda.org/faq/about-jet/
This took more energy than it produced because JET was an experimental device never designed to do so.
Currently ITER (JET's sucessor) is under construction in France. This will be able to generate more energy than it creates but will not be a commercial powerstation.
http://www.jet.efda.o.../iter-and-the-future/
ITER's task is to sort out some of the engineering (as opposed to science) problems before DEMO can be built, probably in Japan which would be the first demonstration fusion power plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO
Timelines in above link
This is E=Mc²
Energy and mass are equivilent You can distroy mass and get energy or vice versa.
c, the speed of light is a very big number you don't have to distroy much mass to get a lot of Energy.
In effect you actually have the conservation of mass/energy - they have to be considered together in nuclear reactions.
When you bang light atoms together the heavier atom that is produced contains less mass than the sum of the parts so you get energy out.
It's the opposite to fission where heavier atoms are split to make lighter ones.
This is because there is something called binding energy that holds it together and if you look at how the binding energy as you go up from lighter to heavier atoms it looks like this:
http://hyperphysics.p...cene/imgnuk/bcurv.gif
See that going from a very light element to a slightly heavier one generates a lot of energy (left hand side)
Incidently Iron is in the middle, it is the most stable, you can't get energy by splitting it or by fusing it
Energy and mass are equivilent You can distroy mass and get energy or vice versa.
c, the speed of light is a very big number you don't have to distroy much mass to get a lot of Energy.
In effect you actually have the conservation of mass/energy - they have to be considered together in nuclear reactions.
When you bang light atoms together the heavier atom that is produced contains less mass than the sum of the parts so you get energy out.
It's the opposite to fission where heavier atoms are split to make lighter ones.
This is because there is something called binding energy that holds it together and if you look at how the binding energy as you go up from lighter to heavier atoms it looks like this:
http://hyperphysics.p...cene/imgnuk/bcurv.gif
See that going from a very light element to a slightly heavier one generates a lot of energy (left hand side)
Incidently Iron is in the middle, it is the most stable, you can't get energy by splitting it or by fusing it
1 to 7 of 7
