Author Topic: Power Systems  (Read 24962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Utini

  • Specialist
  • ***
  • Posts: 23
Re: Power Systems
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2010, 11:57:19 PM »
You may very well be right with civilian reactors; most of my experience has been with naval reactors, where the idea is to not make the vessel with a SCRAM'ed reactor a target as much as possible. Hence the partial SCRAM capability, among other things. And, yes, the whole idea of a reactor is to make it difficult for it to go to K>>1. In those instances, the reactor becomes a "physics package", and the retail value and the desirability of the neighborhood experience ... downward trends, shall we say?

As a side note to SCRAM'ing a reactor, if it's been running under load for a while (4+ days), you will have ~7% total output still being generated by beta decay. This energy must be dissipated somehow until the fission byproducts have beta decayed into non-fissile materials. That process can take a day or two, depending on what baseline you set as "safe".

profit004

  • MCCS Test
  • Mission Commander
  • ******
  • Posts: 418
Re: Power Systems
« Reply #46 on: October 18, 2010, 11:57:05 AM »
Yeah, my knowledge of choice was on the civilian side since I have always been interested in power.  Naval vessels it makes perfect sense that they would only want to shutdown their main power source in the most dire of circumstances.

Yeah I knew about the beta decay energy, did not realize it was as high as 7% though.   Always kinda envisioned it only a problem if for some reason all the coolant was lost or something.

Ivanpet

  • MCOTest
  • Mission Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 153
Re: Power Systems
« Reply #47 on: December 01, 2010, 03:30:34 PM »
agreed

Byter10

  • Private
  • **
  • Posts: 8
Re: Power Systems
« Reply #48 on: January 02, 2011, 09:43:05 PM »
I'm not too scientifically trained but I remember reading a few articles about how we're getting quite close to fusion and that the most efficient fusion plants are expected to be the smallest, although the exact sizes I can't remember. I just wanted to add this considering we're talking about a game set say 50 years in the future... 50 years ago, we were amazed by a fuzzy black and white photograph whereas now we have cameras that have a billion pixels. Huge increase. If that continues, we could possibly have fusion on Mars. I know transporting the fusion plant or its components would be difficult but if it were the size of an average satellite, it would not take up too much room and would provide a steady stream of power unlike solar or wind and would not produce any radioactive contaminants (I think). Even though the reactor would be a closed system, the question is what happens if that system breaks down and the radiation escapes? I don't know if the different scenarios that could cause such an event to occur, but surely there is the chance a flaw or an external stimuli could cause the reactor to release radiation? Fusion would therefore have the safety factor... (The chance of radiation exposure could be a plausible scenario, although I assume the actual reactor would be placed inside a protective room incase such an event occured?)

Feel free to pick over my ideas.  ;D

profit004

  • MCCS Test
  • Mission Commander
  • ******
  • Posts: 418
Re: Power Systems
« Reply #49 on: January 03, 2011, 04:10:18 PM »
Unless I invent it, or someone comes up with a really novel approach to fusion, there will be no fusion power on mars in our lifetime.

Fusion reactions are great sources of neutrons but they are not safer and they produce as much if not more radioactive waste than fission.

of course we can fairly safely collect fusion byproducts here on earth from the central reactor 93 million miles away, but I really do not foresee us developing a decent fusion reactor any time in the future.  The physics just do not scale down well, and the things that make fusion possible just are not conducive to control.

My fiancee had a novel idea though about it,  I asked her and she said I should put some deuterium in a cup and put a plate on top of it and set it in the microwave.   Probably has about the same chance of success for being a cheap energy source as the other methods we are trying.


Snowpig

  • Specialist
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
Re: Power Systems
« Reply #50 on: January 04, 2011, 03:50:16 PM »
And how do you want to power the microwave?  ::)

profit004

  • MCCS Test
  • Mission Commander
  • ******
  • Posts: 418
Re: Power Systems
« Reply #51 on: January 04, 2011, 07:28:25 PM »
Plug it into the wall obviously....
 ::)

Utini

  • Specialist
  • ***
  • Posts: 23
Re: Power Systems
« Reply #52 on: January 05, 2011, 02:14:49 AM »
The current MAJOR problems with fusion boil down to two current show-stoppers: converting the energy generated to electricity and maintaining the reaction. The current primary method of energy conversion, heat to steam, is painfully inefficient and relies on absolutely massive, extremely precisely balanced chunks of metal moving at extremely high speeds. Other methods, such as those exhibited by solar panels, require some rather exotic and esoteric materials that don't take very well to being bathed in plasma, even magnetically contained plasma.  Further, you have to have some way of maintaining the deuterium flow to the reactor.  Too much deuterium in the reactor and you either get flares, with rather .... catastrophic results or the reaction is poisoned and never goes off. Neither are beneficial.  And since we are required to contain the reaction to obtain the necessary heat and pressure required to initiate fusion, a magnetic bottle is required. Thus, the deuterium must either be passed through this magnetic bottle, with random and/or chaotic deflections to the particle stream, which would result in the deuterium not reaching the location required for the z-pinch or laser pinch, or the bottle must have a hole opened in it for brief periods and the deuterium pellet fired at extremely high rates of speed through said opening to minimize heat and pressure loss and damage to the containment vessel proper. Remember, we are talking about heat greater than that found in the envelopes of stars to make up for the lower pressure.  You also have to remove the resultant helium, to prevent it from poisoning future reactions.  Another long-term problem faced by fusion is that hydrogen fusion, even deuterium and tritium, is a rather energetic source of beta and gamma radiation.  These emissions, along with the helium particles (alpha particles) will interact with the walls of the containment vessel, causing them to transmutate into their radioactive isotopes. Unfortunately, these isotopes tend to be the ones with short half-lives and thus high radiation levels.  Further, the neutron bombardment inherent in any nuclear reaction tends to damage the walls on a molecular level.

Thus, while current experiments have nearly reached energy parity (same energy out as in), these are for single deuterium-tritium pellets that are precisely placed before the experiment.  We've got a LONG way to go before fusion goes viable. There's a reason it's been 50 years away for the last 50 years...

P.s. Just to give you an idea of the power required to START a fusion reaction, recent experiemnts have required a pulse of 25 MW, for a total fusion reaction of ~.5 seconds and a power output of 16.1 MW.

profit004

  • MCCS Test
  • Mission Commander
  • ******
  • Posts: 418
Re: Power Systems
« Reply #53 on: January 05, 2011, 08:08:20 PM »
Yeah, I applaud humanity for creating a star for a second or two on the earth, but I really don't see us getting control of this for quite a while.

And even if/when we do, I am thinking it is currently going to be a power plant that powers a small country and not something that can be taken to mars.

But I still believe there is something we as humans are overlooking with fusion.. LOL that's why I asked my fiancee... She see's things scientists overlook all the time, even though she probably couldn't even tell you what hydrogen was much less how fusion worked.   

So with that in mind... Keep thinking, Maybe there is a way to use a metaphorical hammer and an anvil to smash atoms together.  Just lets not consider it for the game until we do find that way =p

thedubman

  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
Re: Power Systems
« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2011, 07:58:38 PM »
Its back to the wind up torches then..... ;)

Nice work guys- I learned a lot from that.
This thread has been running a while,  for the benifit of the sim what are the favorite choices for power and how we use it?

profit004

  • MCCS Test
  • Mission Commander
  • ******
  • Posts: 418
Re: Power Systems
« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2011, 09:47:26 PM »
Except wind up torches currently use a significant amount of oil and energy in their manufacturing =p

Currently inside the sim the power favorite is nuclear fission. 

It has : Lower weight by far per watt produced, is compact, is realatively lightweight, is reliable, and is safe, is well understood and researched.

The runner up is RTG(Radio Isotopic thermal generator) (Nuclear Decay)

It has: Fairly Low weight per watt, EXTREAMLY compact, super reliable, and fairly safe. *not being able to shut them down knocks a point or two off safety.

Also Stirling cycle Radio Isotopic linear alternators are a fair idea.

They have: Better weight per watt than RTG. Fairly compact, Fairly Reliable and fairly safe.

Current fails are:

Solar - Way too heavy per watt. Possibly unreliable.
Wind- Ditto
Orbital - Too involved.
Fusion - Might not even be possible ever
Algae alcohol - Too much space, way too much water.

We have discussed power storage some as well. 

That there is not such a clear winner in.    Most have tradeoffs and pro's and cons.

Currently topping the list are Li-ion batteries and storage fuel cells. Batteries for efficiency, fuel cells for raw long term capacity.