is it possible to use fissile energy as an alternative energy

 

No, it will always be a normal energy.

Mike.

 

nuclear fuel is only to get steam and perhaps balance mechanism is all same like steam turbines.

we have to eagerly see whether at least now Indian Govt goes for frequency stability for the generating stations locking them to atomic clock

__________________
Regards,
Sarma.

 

Fission is where nuclear energy normally comes from.

What scientists are looking for is to get energy from hydrogen fusion.

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez
And http://www.silicontronics.com, same screen name as here.

 

how this will be a normal energy........are we leaving only radioactive waste for our successors

 

The only byproduct of hydrogen fusion is water. No radiation.

Current thinking is 20 to 30 years to the first powerplant. But they have been saying that since the 50's. Still they have been making progress. Expensive research needed.

__________________
search engine for electronic parts
Junebug USB PIC programmer kit., USB Bit Wacker, 3v0's Homepage
The 15 Minute Printed Circuit Board! (+drill time)

 

Although some say cold fusion occurs in special electrolysis of water which is total rubbish.

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez
And http://www.silicontronics.com, same screen name as here.

 

Helium, actually.

 

LOL you are exactly right.

__________________
search engine for electronic parts
Junebug USB PIC programmer kit., USB Bit Wacker, 3v0's Homepage
The 15 Minute Printed Circuit Board! (+drill time)

 

Fusion reactors are not entirely without the problem of radioactive waste. Whilst you are quite correct in saying that no 'Spent' radioactive fuel is created , however due to the high neutron flux density there will be an amount of contaminated material to be disposed of.

Anything in or near the torus will be rather lively for the next 50-100 years. The estimated mass of waste requiring special consideration when the ITER fusion reactor is decommissioned will be around 6000 tonnes.

Of course they still have to build the thing, that's expected to take a decade and with a proposed life-span of twenty years before they scrap it, hopefully all the bugs would of been figured out by then.

Going back to the original question..
I suppose if it's not mainstream commercial then it's alternative, you could even argue that fission or fusion have some 'green' credentials.

Back in the fifties the future forecasters predicted fission for everyone, small power plants not unlike those used by the navy submarines would be a common site in even the smallest of towns. Unfortunately after a couple of rather nasty incidents at existing facilities the public went sour on the idea of any large scale roll-out.

Now over fifty years later the idea is being given a second try in the town of Galena in Alaska. As currently envisioned, the Toshiba 4S (Super Safe, Small and Simple) nuclear power system would be able to supply about 10 MW of electrical power for 30 years without any new fuel.

__________________
It may seem like a good idea at the time , but never stir your cold coffee with a soldering iron.

 

hi,
The first was the ZETA project circa 1954.

Google: ZETA fusion project


http://objectwiki.sciencemuseum.org....rmal_Apparatus

__________________
Eric
"Good enough is Perfect"

PIC tutorials:
Gramo's: www.digital-diy.net/
Bill's: www.blueroomelectronics.com/

 

I wonder if it would be possible to take a radioactive material, one that is really hot, like Plutonium 238. You put that inside a sealed container which has a synthetic diamond rod pushed up against it as the heat transfer medium, this can then be used to power a stirling engine.

I guess it isn't that much different from a regular nuclear power plant, just in this case the heat is used to power a stirling engine instead of make steam for a turbine.

Whatcha think?

 

I would rather improve thermocouple efficiency and better the current RTG technology, running a stirling off the decay heat seems a bit redundant, as radioactive decay won't offer very high temperature which will make an engine running off the heat excessively low power density design. Greater size means greater internal losses and thus reduced efficiency.

 

P238 is a very hot material, it glows under it's own decay generated heat.