This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
U.S. Cancels Fusion Program
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel
Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel
Put it on the Moon. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, and also, if it goes out of control and creates a small black hole that slowly starts consuming everything, we'll have time to use the bits of the moon that are left to shove the whole mess off into the Sun.
Or something
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, 'cause if there's one place we should dump an all-consuming singularity, it's in the middle of our most important source of heat, light and food (via photosynthesis). At least we'll have a backup source, namely ... er, the fusion research station we just fired into the sun. Fuck.
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:3, Informative)
Bear in mind that a black hole with lunar mass would have a tiny event horizon. Given the amount of thermal noise in the solar center, it would be very hard for anything to "fall in" without being bumped out first. In time, the hole might consume the sun, but my back of the envelope calculations suggest that it's far more likely that the pseudo-singularity would decay in a burst of Hawking
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:3, Funny)
It is stalled because of the US (Score:5, Insightful)
I just love to see the only _really good_ energy source that is in our future being delayed and delayed because of petty politics.
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:5, Funny)
Would it be simpler in natural vacuum? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worth examining this proposition at face value for pros and cons, rather than immediately discounting it.
The first question that comes to mind is, does plasma research benefit from being carried out in a natural vacuum environment rather than needing apparatus to create one artificially? How does the degree of evacuation inside a fusion containment vessel compare with that in LEO, far orbit, or on the Moon? Is there any benefit to be gained from ever-better vacuums, such as freedom from plasma contamination?
Questions like those are probably more likely to be of interest than any handwaving about danger from black holes.
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microwaves? Too dangerous.
Space elevator relay? Theoretically possible, but practically impossible to build, and costly...
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum? (Score:3, Insightful)
And which state gets the massive influx of cash and jobs? Seriously, you don't seem to understand t
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:5, Funny)
With a network of jump gates, and the terraforming of most of the larger satellites of Jupiter and Saturn (heat source: to be determined), we could put together quite a nice culture.
Note: be sure to switch off all artificially intelligent laser-armed spy satellites before leaving planet. Who knows what they'll take into their minds over a hundred years or so...
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:3, Informative)
We've already got that. It's called the Hubbert Peak [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net]
Those of us who haven't seen Farenheit 911 might wonder who would benefit most from $7/gallon gas prices...and who they have on thier payroll. Cancelling projects like these is one way to keep them happy.
Re:Put it on the Sun (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Put it on the Moon. (Score:5, Interesting)
You throw things at it.
Other than the whole nothing able to leave the event horizon thing, it's just an object, with momentum, mass, etc . .
If you have a 1000Gg singularity (yes, thats absolutely tiny, but it might be what we would create in a laboratory), you could 'hit' it with objects, and they would 'push' it.
That's assuming it's not so small as to simply pass through anything.
The idea of a teeny-weeny laboratory singularity is not, actually, totally crazy.
Just mostly crazy. Extremely high desity != high mass.
Remember, density = mass/volume. You get a blackhole when you smash something hard enough to overcome the positive neutron pressure.
Which is pretty high, high enough that I'm not certain we'll get there anytime soon, but definetely within the realm of possiblity.
After all, if we made a blackhole (singularity), it's not probable we'll manufacture it with a mountain's worth of material, or a planet's worth.
More likely, it would just be a few errant particles we smashed together.
Kind of a neat thought, eh?
Good news in a way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good news in a way (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of actually building the thing, we can get into a winkie measuring contest about where to build it.
This is actually a very good option (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I find spending that much money to acquire the knowhow to build something you wouldnt want to build commercially a waste of good money. Give more money to La Sandia instead for their pulsed fusion research (yeah yeah, I know it hasnt produced anything worthwhile either
Re:Good news in a way (Score:4, Interesting)
-
Re:Good news in a way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good news in a way (Score:5, Interesting)
If that $2 million figure really is the budget for FIRE, it probably costs that much just to send delegates across the pond to argue about where they're not going to build the reactor.
Jay
Re:Good news in a way (Score:5, Informative)
I really have trouble believing that any sort of fusion project, especially one funded by the states, has a measly budget of 2 million a year.
Projects are done in stages. 2 million a year on a project still in essentially a design stage, before it reaches the engineer stage where actually prototypes of important physical systems are built and tested, isn't so far-fetched.
You have to take a look at hard far down the road FIRE is to put the cost in perspective. FIRE was just beginning to assess the cost of contruction of things like the magnetic field coils. If FIRE was still a priority, there are several rounds of additional funding that would have gone into the project as it met specific review criteria. These project don't get budgetted for the full project at the beginning. There are multiple phases, with reviews, that if successful mean more money when its needed to actually build things. You don't get the money to even build prototype of critical systems till there is a significant review process of the physics and engineering concerns.
-jef
Re:Good news in a way (Score:5, Insightful)
They're talking about $5 billion, total, to build ITER. That's miniscule money compared to what we're throwing away on fighting in a certain country known for its oil
Re:Good news in a way (Score:4, Informative)
We're blowing about $4 billion a MONTH in Iraq.
The cost of war is high.
The opportunity cost is staggering.
Re:Shut up liberal. (Score:5, Insightful)
References please.
Re:Shut up liberal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Iraq != Taliban, or Al-Qaeda.
I agree with the war in Iraq, however, for entire different reasons.
Get your shit straight, and then it will make more sense.
U.S. has maintained a virtual occupation (containment) of Iraq since Desert Storm 1. We had no exit strategy.
We could have either a) left the area, pulled out our planes, and let Saddam did as he wanted, b) invaded, and force regime change, or c) maintain the SQ, shooting SAM sites, and occasionally have a plane shot down by Saddam's troops.
My opinion, B) was the best idea.
Unfortunately, we didn't consult the international community, we decided to pin it on WMD, we didn't bother to try and force Saddam out of power, and we still maintain that regime change was a fiction necessitated by WMD.
Saddam was a complete asshole, but our diplomatic efforts surrounding his removal were beyond terrible.
Anyways, these people (Iraqs) did not declare war on us. Infact, they never declared war on anyways.
Their autocratic fascist dictator declared war on Kuwait, and we only just now decided to end his rule.
A Comedy of Errors.
Re:Good news in a way (Score:4, Insightful)
The US wasn't putting any money into FIRE. $2 million for people to sit around tables saying `wouldn't it be nice if we had a fusion programme' (i.e. a pre-conceptual study) is nothing but a fig leaf. It was a place holder to say the US might set up a programme of it's own if it didn't get all it's own way with ITER. Aparently this didn't impress anyone, so there is no point in doing another $2million nothing next year.
Re:Good news in a way (Score:3, Informative)
I remember reading that a lot of the technological hurdles for that project come from the fact that most of the laser-amplification technology they plan to use doesn't exist at their scale (yet), and that that'll be the most interesting part of getting this working, developing these new technologies.
I'd hope we get the manufacture of certain materials in space going, because I think they'll need it (ultra-pure glass, perfectly-sh
Russia (Score:5, Informative)
A shame.
Re:Russia (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, but it's heavy vodka.
Possible ITER sites (Score:5, Informative)
Clarington,Canada; Vandellòs, Spain; Cadarache, France; and Rokkasho-mura, Japan.
Clarington and Vandellòs were withdrawn. But by the rate they're going, Japan and France might be blown off as well.
More info [iter.org] from ITER's site.
Petty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Petty (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm, and the USA would never ever do that eh?
Re:Petty (Score:5, Informative)
Thermonuclear weapons already use fusion, and we had *thousands* of them. The soviets detonated a ~50 megaton bomb at one point (57Mton I think). What could *possibly* lead to bigger/better weapons from this research?
AFAIK making a 'bomb' is much easier than making fusion into a viable energy source.
No closer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No closer (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but safety standards have since been raised, and you couldn't get that design built today. It may not be nearby, but it is completely unshielded, and prolonged exposure to it's radiation is known to cause cancer.
Re:No closer (Score:3, Funny)
-- J. Hover, chief stellar engineer, Sirius Sector
Re:No closer (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, politics being what it is, the fusion research (more engineering, really) program has never been fully funded. If you were to look at the original projections for fusion development, and compare the amount of money estimated as needing to be spent to the amount that has actually been spent, you'll see that the state of the ar
Re:No closer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No closer (Score:3, Interesting)
The point being that solar energy efforts get a pittance of money compared to oil exploration. In the past, that has probably been justified. But within the last 10-20 yea
Re:No closer (Score:3, Funny)
We're using about a two-billionth of the Sun's power. I think that counts as 'barely even exploiting it'.
Re:Exploiting the sun (Score:3, Insightful)
For one it's extremely expensive to build miles of solar panels. Not only that, the technology is improving all the time - we probably had something like 2.5% efficiency 15 years ago, now we have 10-15% and we'll be up into the low 20's hopefully soon.
To add to all that, the problem of getting the supply anywhere is very hard. You can produce megawatts o
Re:Exploiting the sun (Score:3, Interesting)
Use solar energy to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen, which can be done by a number of means. Solar cells is one one, but solar power can also be used in huge turbines instead (more efficient) to generate AC current. In either way the electricity can be used in the neighbourhood directly, and be used for electrolysis for large scale use and storage
Re:Exploiting the sun (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it looks like it could be 50% soon. [newscientist.com].
>To add to all that, the problem of getting the supply anywhere is very hard. You can produce megawatts of the stuff, but it's all coming out as low voltage DC when everyone needs high voltage AC. That mea
Re:Exploiting the sun (Score:5, Interesting)
Efficiency doesn't need to go up to make solar cost-effective. The most efficient PV modules are insanely expensive to build; give me 10% efficiency for a dirt cheap thin-film that I can put on my roof and I'll be happy. The sector is growing some 30% a year, and each doubling in production brings prices down. Modules are now around $4/watt, and the Japanese, with their solar roof program, have taken a leadership position and created a huge market. With that comes more incentive to find break-throughs in thin-film technology.
We likely won't have massive farms of the stuff any time soon. Building-integrated photo voltaics (BIPV if you want to google for more info) is one of the more promising avenues. Solar energy and consumption is distributed, as should be its conversion to electricity.
In a distributed generation system, local variations even out on a larger scale so you won't get massive drops as clouds pass over. Even in overcast days you can get 70% of the energy of a bright day, so the energy produced is not going to suddenly drop anywhere. In places where energy use is highly correlated to air conditionning, this is a very useful addition to the power mix.
Solar is a fascinating field, if much smaller than wind. I wish
Re:Exploiting the sun (Score:4, Informative)
Individual cells are low voltage DC, but they are easily combined in series to obtain higher voltages. DC is superior for transmission. Inverters can be very efficient, 90% would be considered bad efficiency at megawatt power levels.
Vested Interests (Score:4, Insightful)
And furthermore, it seems to me that fusion research in the EU is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that people here instinctively equate all nuclear power with dangerous, radioactive evil.
Which is a great shame, because it seems that fusion is the best long-term bet to avoid either:
a) the major cities of the world being swamped in a series of catastrophic floods as the icecaps break up
and/or
b) the world running out of fuels before finding adequate replacement and reverting to a state of pre-industrial, Mad-Max-style savagery.
So, in conclusion, I reckon that if our respective governments aren't willing to fund proper fusion research, then they should at least get working on the Thunderdome.
Re:Vested Interests (Score:5, Insightful)
You might be right, but remember there's really no such thing as an oil company. There are only energy companies. The smart ones recognize that, the dumb ones think it's all about oil. No-one wants oil. What they want is motive power.
Also remember that not much oil goes into power stations - mostly they're natural gas, coal nuclear, hydro, etc. Oil ends up in automobiles of one sort or another. Pitch it to Bush that Texas can provide all the oil the US needs and fusion will supply the rest and he can get the US out of the Middle East for good (barring support for Israel of course), and he'll jump at the chance, I reckon.
Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil wells (Score:4, Insightful)
And if fusion delivered what fission failed to - energy too cheap to meter - you can bet it wouldn't be long before significantly less oil was going into automobiles of one sort or another.
Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember when comm. satellites were going to make long-distance telephony too cheap to meter. Look around: lots of telcos meter every call you make, across the globe or over the fence.
What *does* happen is "costs us less to make the same amount of profit."
Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we (Score:3, Interesting)
For thoroughness, I should point out that "profits are up 40%" needs some context. If ExxonMobil earned $100 last year and $140 this year (out of umpty-ump billion dollars of revenue) then profits are up 40% but they only made enough more to throw a pizza party for the Directors. They *could* have been ta
Re:Vested Interests (Score:5, Informative)
Remember that they have invested _billions_ each year in their oil business. They have paid (or the state has paid for them) insane amounts of money for all the production capasity, transportation, knowledge, contracts, refineries and all the other infrastructure. They know the oil business, the other people in the oil business and the customers in the oil business.
Most likly they conclude that with a status quo, they will continue to literarily print money.
The incentives for them to change the energy situation are few and elusive. In a world based more on renewable energy and distributed harvesting of the energy they are not guaranteed success. Such a situation would increase competition and make it harder for them to compete at what they are good at.
And you are incorrect about most of the oil ends up in automobiles etc. IIRC, USA uses about 40% of the oil for automobiles/transportation, 20% for power/heating/electro and 40% for industry/chem/stupid plastic toys.
Re:Vested Interests (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely. GW Bush didn't invade Iraq because he wanted the oil. The financial movers and shakers in this nation needed an excuse to drive an American wedge into OPEC. OPEC has had a stranglehold on the US for decades and it wasn't getting any better. The only way that the US could ever break the controlling hold of OPEC was to physical invade their territory. If OPEC had been allowed to co
Re:Vested Interests (Score:3, Informative)
Just some small little sidenotes...
First of all, a substantial part of the electricity in EUrope is generated using nuclear power, especially in France.
Second, people here know quite well that fusion is not having the same issues with redioactive waste as more traditional forms of nuclear po
Coal Fire Is Worse (Score:3, Informative)
Regardless, even accounting for all the tragic deaths from CHernobyl, EUrope (FRance, in particular) still has cleaner power than the primary power source [herald-dispatch.com] in AMerica. I would gladly trade the coal fire p
Re:Vested Interests (Score:3, Informative)
That's a myth. Most of the energy in a fusion reaction comes out as fast neutrons; these gradually mess up the structure of the reactor vessel and make it radioactive.
Secondly, most or all of the possible ways to catch the fast neutrons create secondary nuclear waste.
The idea that fusion power is 'clean' is not backed up by the facts.
Re:Vested Interests (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
Vice President Dick Cheney, head of the presidential task force studying our energy needs, favors building new nuclear power plants..
So much for your theory that cutting back on fusion research is part of a secret righ-wing plot to protect oil profits.
It took me 12 seconds (I timed it) to google that up. New tab, "Bush Nuclear Power", first link, first sentence, here [commondreams.org].
Is is too much to ask that moderators spend 12 seconds before modding up crackpot propaganda such as the parent post? Of course it is. It's an election year, so you need to use your moderation points to advance your political prejudice that George Bush is public enemy number one. That's justified, because we have the proof: If he backs nuclear power, then that is proof that he is environmentally reckless. If he does not back nuclear power, then that is proof that he is conspiring to protect oil profits.
Re:Vested Interests (Score:3, Informative)
White House types (and Congressional types as well) have the dubious privilege of putting their assets into a blind trust, which must basically sell it all off and put it elsewhere, without telling the principal just where it is invested (hence "blind"). This is to prevent that particular form of corruption.
Far m
Re:Vested Interests (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words... (Score:3, Funny)
The US has put its fusion program on ice and has created a new form of Cold Fusion!
ba da dum
Deja Vu... (Score:3, Insightful)
With almost all things 'International' being done for the sake of individual national glory while shifting costs to others, one would wonder if it is wise to depend solely on such an international effort.
The world needs to break free from fossle feuls as a source of energy, and i think competition would drive the effort faster then arguing over stupid things like where to put a building.
YAPM (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems these days there is a battle of EU vs US (and others). One side wants France. One Japan. Science waits.
I say, pick a desolate area in Asiatic Russia. Land will be cheap (if not already polluted), and the scientists will have less outside distractions. And the EU faction can claim victory even though it will be geographically closer to the Japan land area.
The goal is to get clean, enconomically viable fusion WORKING. Not to see who has the facility.
answer is obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:answer is obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
You're idea makes perfect sense, from a "let's get the job done and learn some science" point of view. But that really doesn't seem to be the point here. As many have pointed out, it looks like just another ISS.
I'm kind of interested in who would own the technology once it's completed. Sure, governments subsidize and control energy technologies, but they still have to hire private companies to build and design many of the parts. Most nuclear reactors in this country have turbines built be either GE or Westinghouse, and in EU it's Siemens.
What risks? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the waste that comes from fusion plant? Can it blow up with chain reaction?
The walls of the plant will in time get active. And the problem with fusion is that we can not have a sustainable raction going on - if it gets out of hand it'll just die.
Sad to see USA close their project. I just hope this makes to remaining project that much better with more resources... at least in theory.
Don't be hasty. (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably won't work, Congress is too short-term-focused, as elected officials tend to be. But it's a spirited attempt.
Solar power is still vastly underutilized (Score:5, Insightful)
Like distributed computing, I think distributed power generation would work amazingly well. If there were millions and millions of homes generating power alongside our power plants (nukes, not dirty fossil fuel plants), we could achieve energy independence from foreign nations, reduce fossil fuel dependence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil/coal buring powerplants.
The challenges are difficult to overcome, however.
The big oil and gas companies, of course, would lobby against any distributed power generation. I'm sure they don't want millions of solar powered homes. There is no money in it for them.
Solar panels are, I think, relatively inefficient and expensive. Their efficacy would need to be boosted and the price would have to go down.
I can see a day, though, when everyone is generating everyone's power through distributed generation. It's cheaper, greener, and it just makes sense... which is probably why it will never happen.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, the technological challanges are minimal. We have solar panels today nearing the theoretical maximum effeciecy of the substrate used to convert it. No they are not cheap and that is th
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized (Score:3, Insightful)
2. The technological challenges are not "minimal" if we've
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized (Score:4, Informative)
FSVO 'fact.'
In the real world, upwards of 40% of a given barrel of oil ends up as gasoline [anl.gov], and maybe up to 60%. Gasoline. That's used in cars, military vehicles, and small planes. It's not used to power or heat our homes.
The other 75% goes directly to manufacturing, and thus demand will not be significantly reduced by simply adding solar.
Wrong. Plastics and other manufacturing concerns consume the minority of each barrel of crude. Now, granted, if we stop using the lighter fractions of crude to drive our cars, that doesn't mean we can magically turn the whole barrel into heavier stuff suitable for plastics feedstocks, but your numbers are way off.
We have solar panels today nearing the theoretical maximum effeciecy of the substrate used to convert it.
Yeah, and? Next step is to make them cheaper. Or more durable, which basically amounts to the same thing.
Besides, we've already got the technology to move beyond fossil fuels, it's as safe or safer than burning coal, pollutes a helluva lot less, and has enough fuel sitting around to last us practically forever: fission. The only thing lacking is the political will, and the only problem is that people are stupid.
World electricity consumption vs solar (Score:3, Insightful)
World electricity consumption circa 2001: under 14 trillion KWh (14 x 10^12)
Max solar energy typically falling on a square metre of land: 1 KWh
Minimum area of land needed to supply world demand at 100% conversion: 14 million Km^2, or 14 solar farms of 1,000 x 1,000 Km each.
Before anyone gets carried away, this doesn't lead directly to a plan for converting the world to solar by siting 14 farms in the world's deserts.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard this asserted many times. But, the patent database is online, Slashdot refers to it all the time. I've very curious to know if you can post a patent number for an oil-alternative that is currently owned by an "oil" company for the purpose of suppressing its development.
How much more energy do we need? (Score:4, Interesting)
We already generate enough power world-wide. The reason we worry about power needs is because, (1) development perpetually accelerates industry's demands, and (2) we don't take energy conservation seriously.
The clue that something is wrong is in the words "perpetually accelerates". How can one earth, a closed system, sustain ever-increasing amounts of wastes produced by industrial throughputs? This is obviously not a sustainable practice. In other words it's not the lack of energy that's going to kill us, but rather the byproducts of what we process using that energy.
If we could just replace all 'dirtier' power sources with newer cleaner technologies, that would be great but I suspect that the more practical direction will be to just add new power facilities on top of existing ones. More power for the world means quicker resource consumption. This is not something we should be happy about, because it compromises our ability to live on earth in the long term.
Re:How much more energy do we need? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it's a political nightmare, and it would require measures that would make China's look Utopian. In the long run, though, I believe it is the only way to achieve sustainability as long as we are constrained to this planet. After all, it's axiomatic: If we don't manage our population, natural forces will manage it for us.
A different Hobbes, sort of... (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope you know what I'm on about, because if I have to explain about the best comic strip in history, I'll know I've suddenly become much older than I thought I was. Cheers!
A bit of clarification... (Score:5, Informative)
1.) RTFA: FIRE is one of many fusion research projects in the U.S. This article gives the impression that we just 'gave up' on this whole crazy fusion thing. This is far from true...
2.) Fusion is NOT LIKE IN SPIDERMAN 2. Go read this: Fusion Basics at PPPL [pppl.gov]
3.) ITER is the next step towards a steady state or 'burning' plasma. This is (obviously) a critical part of building a production-class fusion reactor.
- Justin
Dream of fusion power? (Score:3, Funny)
I just hope fusion engineers/scientists are not like computer programmers (me included).
*Boom*
Aaah I see, yep, yep, yep, thought so, no no problem, can we schedule a test for next week? Yep, gimme a minute i'll check the calculations...
*Bigger Boom*
Ooooh, mmmm mmm, yep, no - that's good, we are doing something right, that was definately different, lets hope we don't get a BlackHoleException, yeah, I'd throw a try/catch around that whole nasty business there... *vague pointing*
*fading image of old tv screen switching off*
*smacks head* d'oh! Oh well at least the moon base survived...
The sad state of American science (Score:5, Informative)
Today, the U.S. has retreated from its leadership role and now tries to participate in science on the cheap, by roping in questionable allies such as France and China to help pay for experiments such as ITER that once would have been a purely American sandbox. The already meagre space budget has been sapped by an irrelevant and compromised space station and the oversold space shuttle. The president has barred the funding of promising biological research using embryonic stem cells, thus driving stem cell researchers to other countries to continue their work, and communities across the country are forcing schools to teach "creationism" in biology courses. School kids avoid hard subjects like science and foreign graduate students in the sciences are now the majority--and will they want to stay after they graduate?
In my opinion, the U.S. should turn its attention to science once again and realize that it is in a race with Europe and east Asia to regain and retain the critical lead in science and technological development. The nationstates and alliances of nations which stay focused on scientific achievement will be the economic leaders of the 21st century, while the lazy others will fall behind and become irrelevant.
the ironry? president's support? (Score:5, Insightful)
The President has made achieving commercial fusion power the highest long-term energy priority for our Nation.
DOE Office of Science Strategic Plan February, 2004
Heh. Any one else amused by that? That 2 mil/year really shows how important the program is. And cancelling the program is even better.
FIRE is not the US's sole fusion program (Score:5, Informative)
$2M/year is just for this ONE project.
The summary is extremely poorly written, and apparently the submitter thinks that the US is "canceling" all of its fusion programs, when in reality, ONE project of many is being canceled. The whole reason FIRE came about is because the US pulled out of ITER. Now we're back in, and FIRE could serve as a backup project potentially, but ITER is the focus in this particular line of research. But there are still many, many federally funded fusion research programs, projects, and laboratories around the US! We've spent $5 billion on projects like the National Ignition Facility (NIF) [llnl.gov] alone (only to be crucified by the Left [greenscissors.org]...I guess you can't win).
Jeez. Wake the fuck up, or at least learn something.
Princeton (Score:5, Informative)
I would hate to see such efforts scrubbed. Whatever happens with fusion research, I would like to see such teams and facilities continue to advance their work and contribute towards their research.
Sam Nitzberg
Build your own! (Score:3, Informative)
More information, including plans, is available at Fusor.net [fusor.net].
What about the fusion wastes? (Score:3, Funny)
According to the DHMO FAQ, this lethal substance is responsible for:
Please do your part in warning your friends of this dangerous substance.
how clean is fusion power? (Score:3, Informative)
There will be no fusion power (Score:3, Funny)
The hurdles for fusion power are not technical, they're social.
Re:The UN model? (Score:3, Insightful)
The ISS never had any potential. It was a PR stunt for NASA who needed an excuse for keeping the shuttle flying, an excuse to pump money into the former SU for the white house, and the other `parnters' just saw free money for building bits of high-tech white elephant.
As an example of an international project which does produce results, look at CERN.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ... (Score:5, Informative)
It produces even more radioctive waste than fission, because you have to transform the all the neutreons and other radiation coming out from the reaction, to heat.
I strongly suggest that you read more [iter.org] about nuclear fusion.
The number one problem of humanity is that we are consuming too much natural resources. The availability of a power-source like fusion would increase our consumption even more instead of reducing it.
Why would it not reduce our consumption of resources? When fusion is realised, less coal, oil and natural gas would be required to produce power.
Please everybody stop dreaming of fusion and use your resources (intellectual and monetary) on techonlogies like solar power, ....
I put my intellectual and monetary backing behind nuclear fusion, solar power does not spark my interest as I find that too much energy is reflected. This is a personal opinion of my own.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ... (Score:4, Informative)
- lithium as fusion fuel is available in abundance, unlike fossil fuels.
- technologies like solar power have their own, hidden costs, e.g. the energy cost of creating the cells. Also, for many areas of the world, the intensity of solar radiation is simply too low.
Other techniques may be viable in those regions (wind power), but these, again, have their own pitfalls (noise, effects on wildlife, high servicing costs).
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Proven how? Zero-point energy as an energy source is pure psuedoscientific bullshit.
And that's a fact. They have yet to produce any reproducible experiment proving their bogus hypotheses, or any valid theory to give reason to believe any of this stuff.
and railroaded past those hopeless 'scientists' who still think such things aren't possible.
Being everyone who actually knows something about these matters.
Dismiss this as lunacy and mod-me down? - just remember this as an 'I told you so' when it turns out to be valid all along...
Sure, it's lunacy. I don't believe in education through moderation though.
Re:We already have sustainable nuclear fusion (Score:3, Informative)
Geothermal is great as long as you live near a volcano or hot springs. Geothermal heat pumps work great, though expensive.
Tidal and wind farms kill fish and birds respectively, so you have
Re:We already have sustainable nuclear fusion (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, solar tends to provide you with electricity when you really need it. Electricity demand goes up during the day and falls roughly with the sun. Demand is highest in the
Re:They should build it in... (Score:5, Informative)
Fusion reactors don't explode. The fusion reaction itself is extremely delicate. If anything goes wrong, it simply stops. Sure you now have some hot plasma/gas, but not very much, and it'll cool by itself if left alone. Remember that your reactor is wrapped in cooling systems anyway, since that's how you get the power out of it (at least until we recover sufficient He3 that the power can be extracted magnetically).