Cold fusion, thus far an elusive achievement, would solve the world's energy problems. Cold fusion is an exotic method to create a nuclear reaction. It is considered impossible under the recognized laws of physics. That makes no difference to Italian entrepreneurs who claim to have developed a cold fusion reactor for commercial use. No doubt they took out significant unsecured loans to make this happen. Resource for this article - Alleged cold fusion reactor demonstrated by Italian scientists by MoneyBlogNewz.
Cold fusion and laws of physics functioning well together
Cold fusion was first announced by a pair of physicists in 1989, but other physicists failed to replicate their results and cold fusion was dismissed as junk science. Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi were at the University of Bologna this past Friday where they exhibited a cold fusion reactor even though cold fusion is nevertheless regarded as to be extremely hard. They claim their machine generates power via cold fusion, however they can't explain precisely why. Since there wasn’t enough of a theory confirming this with the laws of physics that are accepted, their application for patent was rejected. They say it will take as little as three months in order to make a commercial cold fusion reactor.
Comparing cold fusion and nuclear fission
A lot of power with nuclear fusion are mixed together and created by the sun. In order to make cold fusion, the atomic nuclei of nickel and hydrogen are fused together at room temperature, says Rossi and Focardi. The reaction produces copper and a lot of power within the form of heat. Nuclear fission is the energy created by atomic reactors and nuclear weapons as the atoms are split in order to release lots of energy with toxic waste and radiation. Only 400 watts of power is needed to make 12,400 watts according to the Italians that believe in cold fusion. They promoted a commercial version of their cold fusion reactor could produce eight times more power than it takes to operate. The cost of the cold fusion power would be relatively cheap. In fact, about 1 cent per kilowatt-hour would be charged. In 2004, 7.62 cents per kilowatt-hour was exactly what the cost was with coal generated power in the United States.
Power plants looking at it
There was a paper on cold fusion that was written by Rossi and Focardi. The peer-reviewed journals refused to accept it though. They created their own online journal "The Journal of Nuclear Physics," and published it themselves. The way a cold fusion reactor is operated doesn’t take a whole lot of instructions. They say, all you truly need to do is follow instructions after flipping a switch. There would have to be refueling of the reactor by an authorized dealer. This would have to occur every six months. There is interest that a Greek utility business has shown.
Information from
Popsci.com
popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/italian-scientists-claim-dubious-cold-fusion-breakthrough
Physorg
physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html
Coal Education
coaleducation.org/ky_coal_facts/electricity/average_cost.htm
I believe for the moment the future is on the fusion reactor, especially now after what is happening on Japan.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/fusion-ignition-0510.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Frist because of Safety:
There is no possibility of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor resulting in major release of radioactivity to the environment or injury to non-staff, unlike modern fission reactors. The primary reason is that nuclear fusion requires precisely controlled temperature, pressure, and magnetic field parameters to generate net energy. If the reactor were damaged, these parameters would be disrupted and the heat generation in the reactor would rapidly cease. In contrast, the fission products in a fission reactor continue to generate heat through beta-decay for several hours or even days after reactor shut-down, meaning that melting of fuel rods is possible even after the reactor has been stopped due to continued accumulation of heat.
Second because the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale:
An important aspect of fusion energy in contrast to many other energy sources is that the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. The cost of wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy, the production cost will not increase much, even if large numbers of plants are built. It has been suggested[by whom?] that even 100 times the current energy consumption of the world is possible.
I am glad 30 years ago our government scrapped the GE Nuclear reactor equipment they bough a year before the 3 Mile Island incident in 1979. Even the nuclear reactor at our Engineering School was scrapped.
GO FUSION