If LFTR and Polywell were both proven which would you take?

passenger66 · Post by **passenger66** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:24 pm

If the LFTR and Polywell were both proven would you still want the LFTR?

I am a layman on this forum i.e. I do not know maths or physics.

I will ask my question several ways.

If the LFTR and Polywell were both proven (I'm not sure if the Polywell would need to be aneutronic for the purposes of my question), would you still want the LFTR?
I'm trying to figure out whether to encourage the LFTR or wait for the Polywell. (The LFTR is proven science AFAIK whereas the Polywell is not AFAIK).
What would you use a neutronic Polywell for if an aneutronic Polywell worked?
Is it an either/or question.

Part of this whole line of questioning is finance - the LFTR will take several billions to develop to production (I guess) even though the science is proven, whereas the Polywell will take only several hundred millions to develop to production (I guess) since it is a simpler machine.

I should also say I'm an Anthropogenic Global Warming believer i.e. I find, for example, James Lovelock's latest book "The Vanishing Face of Gaia" very believable. So I think we have to do a good risk management job of deciding what to do about developing clean energy, given the highly weighted parameters of understanding what really is green and understanding how much (or little) time is left.

This matters to me since I have been trying to influence my MP (Canada) to promote the LFTR as the most efficient, cost-effective, carbon-neutral and proven form of energy.
But if the Polywell is going to be proven shortly, and will cost an order of magnitude less, then we should wait for that, unless there are benefits to the LFTR that cannot be obtained from the Polywell.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:50 pm

Until polywell is proven, which is anywhere from 2-6 years, LFTR seems the way to go as it represents the best option for fission power. What I like best about LFTR is that it really cannot be used to make weapons grade material in that there is no isotopic separation (I think) in the fuel cycle.

You should also know there are other fusion concepts as well. Two versions of FRC stand out, Helion and Tri-Alpha, with Helion having a better shot at success.

passenger66 · Post by **passenger66** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:59 pm

I sent an email to my MP saying that there is this thing called a LFTR, for which he should consult David LeBlanc, who lives in Ottawa, where all the MPs are, and he should also ask him about the Polywell and FRC. I know (if I've understood correctly) that Art Carlson thinks the FRC also looks promising, and his word appears to be respected on this site. I do indeed want to know what the options are, and how to weight them.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:08 pm

There are several fission schemes that are able to show good improvements on current processes. The French have been running reprocessing schemes for many years now and they produce some 40 tons of *actual* radioactive waste for disposal per year* (the rest is stored for future reprocessing, when the economic advantages of doing so prevail), yet produce 70% of their energy by nuclear.

Support fission reactors and their evolution, it's the only known viable way of guaranteeing generally-fossil fuel independent energy.

*(very interesting IEEE article worth reading;
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuc ... asteland/0
and don't miss the graphic;
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/images/feb ... /nucf2.pdf
)