Törölt nick
 2004.04.29
|
|
0 0
221
|
This argument is admittedly very primitive, but it shows the magnitude of the disadvantage that has to be overcome by the advantages of a fuel which produces fewer neutrons. I have not looked at them myself, but apparently the ARIES III and Apollo reactor studies conclude the the cost of electricity from a DHe3 reactor would be comparable to or lower than that from a DT reactor. They gain some because the blanket does not have to breed tritium and does not have to absorb as large a fraction of the fusion energy, so it can be smaller. But it still has to be thick enough to absorb 14 MeV neutrons. They gain further by assuming a higher magnetic field and a higher plasma current. But it is not fair to compare a low field DT machine with a high field DHe3 machine. It is true that tritium containment and handling systems are no longer needed, but I don't believe they drive the cost of a power plant. If the plasma energy can be coupled out directly, e.g. through synchrotron radiation, then DHe3 will have a higher conversion efficiency and less down time to change out neutron damaged parts. This advantage may be more decisive at high fields and high betas. It cannot be ruled out that a DHe3 reactor will ultimately be more economical than a DT reactor, but it will require many developments, and even then it may be a toss-up.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/nuc/reactions.htm
Elvileg 30* kisebb a He3-d neutronsűrüsége,mit a T-D-é.(viszont 3* forróbb anyag kell) |
Előzmény: Törölt nick (219)
|
|