Slashdot Log In
France Will Be Home To Fusion Plant
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jun 28, 2005 02:56 PM
from the eu-power dept.
from the eu-power dept.
ScentCone writes "After years of politicking, France has won the right to be the location for a $12 billion fusion research facility. The plant will use deuterium-from-seawater and a huge electromagnetic ring to produce the 100-million-C conditions in which researchers hope to produce viable fusion. The debate over whether this is even possible continues to rage. The ITER project started in 1985, and there has been a running fight over money and location since. France indicated that if Japan (one of the holdouts) didn't see it their way, they'd build a coalition of the willing and do it anyway. With financing and contracting agreements in place, the 10-year construction can begin." Coverage also available at MSNBC, the NYTimes, CNN, and the BBC.
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: International Fusion Reactor Project Moves Forward 265 comments
mjgp2 writes to mention a BBC article about an agreement which will begin construction on the second most expensive scientific collaboration, after the ISS : the world's first large-scale fusion reactor. From the article: "The seven-party consortium, which includes the European Union, the US, Japan, China, Russia and others, agreed last year to build Iter in Cadarache, in the southern French region of Provence ... He said that the participants would aim to ratify their agreement before the end of the year so construction on the facility could start in 2007. Officials said the experimental reactor would take about eight years to build. The EU is to foot about 50% of the cost to build the experimental reactor. If all goes well with the experimental reactor, officials hope to set up a demonstration power plant at Cadarache by 2040. "
[+]
Hardware: China Claims Successful Fusion Power Test 247 comments
SeaDour writes, "China claims to have carried out a successful test of its experimental thermonuclear fusion reactor. But what exactly made this test 'successful' is not clear. From the article: 'Xinhua cited the scientists as saying that deuterium and tritium atoms had been fused together at a temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius for nearly three seconds. The report did not specify whether the device... had succeeded at producing more energy than it consumed, the main obstacle to making fusion commercially viable.'" China is a participant in the 10-nation ITER project to build a fusion reactor in the south of France by 2015. The article quotes the research head of ITER as saying, "It was important for China to show that it is part of the club. Here are English language versions of the Chinese news release: announcement, background.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically, Greenpeace (real quote), said: " At a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project"
You know, because it would be horrible to have this as an emmissions-free source of energy. Incredible.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:4, Informative)
I can actually see their point, yet this doesn't mean i agree with them...
---
Came flying low. [slashdot.org]
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of this endeavor is that it's an experiment to develop a method that will work in the future, and a method that offers greater potential. I'm quite sure that, once fusion power becomes economical and practical on a widespread basis (and no major disasters turn public opinion against it), the cutbacks in emissions that could be made by shutting down all the older power plants will more than make up for the problems. That's a bit of an assumption, I know, but suffice to say that current methods of "alternative" power generation are not truly practical on a widespread basis.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it does make a lot of sense if you see things their way. If we don't act now, there might not be much left to save by the time we have a working solution (why do we even need one? Because there's reason to believe that in the near future, we'll hit an oil crisis and will need another energy source). Wind power might not be as good a solution as fusion power is (building all those wind farms will probably take even more resources than building a fusion plant), but if it works, it would at least be a partial solution for the immediate problem at hand.
And yes, i find it reasonable to solve the power problem (if there will ever be one) using that works now, instead of waiting for the utopia (at present, it is a utopia, in that it doesn't exist yet, and might not even come to exist in the form everyone imagines that it will) of fusion power to come true.
---
A nasty snotball [slashdot.org]
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
ITER: Potentially solve the world's energy problems for a long time
Windfarms: Produce enough energy to supply about 0.6% of the world's electricity demand.
10,000MW may seem like a lot, but according to the CIA World Factbook, the world consumed 13.8 quadrillion watt-hours in 2001, so the energy produced by the windfarms they're proposing would be a drop in the ocean.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:4, Interesting)
How about another metaphor more slashdotters can relate to - When to upgrade some computer hardware.
This situation is akin to "Well, my computer's not fast enough anymore to run FPS-of-the-moment with the resolution cranked all the way up. I've got $150 in my pocket this week, and over the next couple of months I can save up $1000." So you have 3 choices: 1) Lower the resolution and eye-candy. 2) Buy some RAM, or a newer video card, and make some progress towards getting that FPS going at full speed. Or 3) "I'll just wait a while, until the really new stuff drops in price."
So you can leave the problem where it's at (no good), can put together a solution that works better right now (an improved situation), or you can hope that you'll somehow survive and can find the uber-solution later.
I think what sensible people should be advocating for is that middle solution - make things better, sooner, rather than hold out until later, in both the computer upgrade problem and the power problem.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
The simple fact of the matter is that humans, especially in this day and age, are driven forward to solve their problems with technology. You build a technology, use it, find its flaws, then fix the flaws. So, yes, solar power is fine, as is wind power. What they utterly ignore these technologies are expensive, ugly in terms of resource usage, limited in application, and completely unsustainable for our energy needs without some sort of interference in our social lives. This is completely unrealistic. You are not going to convince a European, and certainly never convince an American that what they really need to do is slow or reduce their energy consumption to the extremes required AND eat the additional costs in taxes and economic productivity required to meet sustainable environmental goals with the technology we have. It is like advocating that the cure for war is for people to just for people to stop getting mad at each other. That certainly might be a cure, but it isn't going to happen in any of our life times.
What we need is a technology that can produce massive amounts of clean energy without any ugly waste products. Fusion is one of those technologies. It is worth pumping some money into it if in 50 years it means the world will have more cheap energy then it knows what to do with.
We have 6 billion people on this planet that all want power, cars, and a basic standard of living. We have a billion or so that live in relative luxury to the rest and utterly refuse to lower their standard of living, if for no other reason then the economic destruction they would suffering for doing so. This will NEVER be a sustainable state of affairs. The only way out is for the billion haves to figure out a way to keep what they have without being so destructive to the environment, and develop it for the have nots who make the environmental destruction of the haves look like pocket change. The three billion or so people sitting in between China, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia who currently have nothing are not going to stay that way forever, and a few solar cells are NOT going to meet their needs. Either we have a technology waiting for them when they rise out of poverty or the environment pays the price.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
First, they have a good point. If you've read more than simply the greenpeace soundbite, you'd know that the overall position is that this represents merely another in a chain of expensive energy projects that will not be operational many years. This reactor should be online in 2015, but the project was begun in 1988: that date should be considered with a few grains of salt. Meanwhile, conservative governments, like the Bush Emperium, get to spout about how they're pursuing clean alternatives, like fusion, instead of doing anything about future shortages now by starting a program of active conservation.
Second, though the reaction itself is indeed emissions-free, you must consider the energy budget of the entire process. This includes but is not limited to: the fabrication of the plant itself and all of its component parts, transportation of all of its component parts to the plant's location, etc. All of which are unlikely to be done with clean energy, as most are highly energy intensive industrial processes, or likely to be done using large diesel trucks. Additionally there is the question of the massive amount of energy necessary to start the fusion reaction, which is unlikely (at first anyways) to be a part of the theoretically self-sustaining nature of a fusion reactor.
This is not to say the thing shouldnt be built, it should. We just shouldnt have the illusion that its helping out with any of our energy needs any time during the first half of the century.
While I have no love for eco-nuts, it is pretty silly to ignore everything, just because you're enamored with the technology they've dissed.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm guessing you don't consider Reuters to be trustworthy? Well, anyway: here's a run of the article as seen on Yahoo [yahoo.com] where you can read the quote verbatim.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Informative)
i do. however, i do take umbrage with the parent poster's complete lack of context! for reference, the paragraphs in question are:
Environmental campaign group Greenpeace estimates that if the project yields any results at all, it will not be until the second half of this century.
"At a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project," it said.
what this says to me is that greenpeace is saying the fusion project will probably not make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions for fifty years and we should be using that 10 billion euros to convert our polluting power sources to current solutions, such as they are.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you should find a press release that is more recent than one from 2003. [greenpeace.org]
i would further suggest that, if you are actually intetested in following greenpeace's position on this and similar matters...
I'm not really interested in the slightest. While I share Greenpeace's commitment to saving the environment and to achieving nuclear disarmament and world peace, I think their fear of nuclear fusion power is ludicrous and unfounded. To be honest, their opposition to it has made me write off their opinion on it almost completely.
They do have a really good point about what we could achieve if we put that money to other uses right now. However, if fusion is to be achieved, serious money must be committed to it. They just don't want the technology to even exist, and I do not respect them for it.
Parent
Patrick Moore (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm what would usually be considered very environmentally minded. I've not only supported environmental work financially, but I attempt to live in an eco-friendly manner.
I've found Greenpeace to be predominantly made up of people who don't think for themselves and have an psychological need to "get even."
I'm not saying useful work is not done by them. They do good work against whaling for example. But as an organization they have a real inability to use logic.
Bring on the fusion, I say. I'm even happy with modern nuclear power if the alternative is fossil fuels.
In the meantime, I'll support people like IFAW, WWF and carry on cycling.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
And a not-well-known fact is that burning coal is slightly radioactive to the atmosphere as well.
It's all relative.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be nice if anybody could provide some sound evidence that this is a legitimate organisation - and that their claim of achieving a 2 billion Kelvin burn is sensible.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
They shoud approach Paul Allen (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Parent is lying (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you could do a little more homework and see that Greenpeace actually does oppose the very technology in question. Here [eubusiness.com] they are quoted as saying that fusion "has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident." This doesn't come across like a position on the timing of the research. Greenpeace holds all sorts of positions that, acted upon, would be mind numbingly expensive. Even they can't think it's an either-or proposition (researching new methods, like fusion, while also making current technologies more efficient). These things aren't mutually exclusive, but Greenpeace's "anything with the the prefix 'nuc' is inherently evil/foolish" mantra is nonsense.
The larger issue, though, to get back to your point (wherein you called me a liar), is that the quote in question, as I presented it, is going to be digested by most casual (and non-scientific) news consumers in pretty much exactly the context in which is was quoted. They're going to hear "this is nuclear, it's bad" no matter how many phrases come before or after it. Greenpeace's frequently simple-minded fan club doesn't really bother with the details, pretty much ever.
But more to the (and back to my original) point: blocking this sort of research doesn't magically make any of Greenpeace's fantasy solutions instantly more achievable or economically viable. But if they can demonstrate to enough people that those things are worth pursuing, that doesn't make important research like this less so. If the people who speak for (or rave about) Greenpeace wanted to sound less shrill, they'd adopt a more rational tone generally. But after all these years, they keep choosing not to, and live in a emotionally inflated, eco-anthropomorphized echo chamber that doesn't actually help develop the tools that would burn less oil. They rely on fear-soaked press releases that, even to the non-savvy are transparently silly, and seem to think that grade-school level dramatics and tantrum-having will solve problems. And to the extent that not everyone involved is like that, those people should be realizing how the whinier majority of their group robs all of them of any credibility whatsoever.
Parent
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure that this happens ALOT faster if the oil price rises steeply.
Give us humans a rational cause (global warming etc.) and we'll ignore it.
Give us a 'direct' feeling (evil enemy in (cold) war, money for gasoline), and we'll react promptly.
Parent
When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:5, Interesting)
Greenpeace, for one, stated that "at a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project."
I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.
They are against new coal plants with modern scrubber technology, they are against fission plants, now they are against this expiremental fusion plant. Do they realize that humanity needs energy to live and thrive? Do they realize that by not building new more efficient powerplants they are forcing people to rely on older, more polluting powerplants more heavily?
It seems counterintuitive to me, it's like they would rather stick their thumb in the eye of corporations than actually help the environment.
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because the IETR gets funding doesn't mean that other forms of energy development is going to even slow down.
It's not only possible, but desirable to fund many different energy projects; simply trying to throw more resources at any particular problem doesn't necessarily mean that it will get finished any faster.
The greenpeace argument depends on the belief that somehow all scientists are equal, and you can take any metallurgist, and he'll magically be an immediate expert in nuclear physics. The fact is that each area of energy development is highly specialized; taking decades to learn the dicipline; you can't just take the people working on the ITER and move them to solar power, and expect them to work their best; first you insult them by telling them their life's work is worth nothing, then you force them to do something they don't like.
It would also have a terrible effect on scientific morale; why start a promising new branch of research at all; you won't be able to prove your theories anyway!
Parent
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:5, Insightful)
I just find it funny that Greenpeace and such groups are probably doing more to promote fossil fuels-- far more harmful by almost every single possible measure than anything nuclear will ever be-- than they are in practice doing anything else at this point. Talk or harrass people out of using nuclear power and all that you're going to result in is people sticking with the existing coal and oil technology, which is both cost effective and for some reason (everyone's too used to it?) mostly leaves you free of protesters.
The most publicity-effective coal lobby in the world is doing so in the name of the environment. Great thinking!
Parent
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:4, Informative)
Fission plants produce material that can be used in weapons or remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. I can understand why Greenpeace is opposed to them.
Fusion power plants have neither of these problems. They use water for fuel and produce material that isn't fissionable and is safe after about 50 years.
However, they do give an excuse for governments, corporations and people to not move toward a safe, clean energy grid made up of wind, solar, biofuels and maybe fusion. From this reasoning I can understand why Greenpeace would have trepidation.
Or they could not understand what nuclear fusion is and have a knee-jerk reaction.
Either way, criticizing them as anti-progress is wrong. I was at one of their mercury testing events where they served coffee that was brewed with solar power. They're nice people, and the chicks were really cute.
Parent
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:5, Informative)
Nitpick: The longer the half-life, the fewer decays per unit time. Stuff that's dangerous for a couple of days is far, far more dangerous than the basically stable elements you mentioned.
Parent
It's all sales. Selling memes, or products: (Score:5, Funny)
You should go to some industry shows for the chemical, oil and coal industries. They'll serve you coffee brewed with electricity generated at a coal plant. The reps will be very nice people to you, and the chicks in the booth will be really cute.
Parent
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely - which is why they advocate for safe technology (wind and solar power) that is economically and environmentally responsible in the present as opposed to 50 years down the road.
I'm all in favor of developing fusion power and other alternatives, but why wait on utilizing some of the current (no pun) energy alternatives?
Parent
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:5, Insightful)
This is being devil's advocate, of course, but the response to your question about humanity needing to live and thrive is "At what point does humanity say 'enough is enough'?" That is Greenpeace and Co.'s rationalization.
Parent
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:5, Insightful)
What's truly tragic, is that their position is represented by the Limbaughs and O'Reilly's of the world as "the mainstream Liberal position".
Frankly, I would much rather have seen the $300 Billion US we've spent in Iraq (so far) instead, spent on Fusion research in the US. If the Fusion research succeeds, then there's no fucking reason to go to Iraq or any other damn Middle Eastern country ever. I think THAT is closer to the mainstream Liberal position than the Greenpeace drivel.
Parent
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. So why are we in Iraq again?
Parent
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:4, Insightful)
The Reuters article is not very balanced, and your post reflects this. Here's how the BBC [bbc.co.uk] decided to quote Greenpeace:
Sounds a bit more reasonable, whether you agree with that position or not.
I think your post was a bit of a cheap shot designed to appeal to the current Slashdot groupthink. It wasn't all that long ago Microsoft-bashing was the favourite karma whoring method. Now that blatantly one-sided criticism of Microsoft is passe, the Greenpeaces and PETAs of the world have become our favourite whipping boys
Parent
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:5, Informative)
Fundamentally, it is because of human desire for progress. Virtually all progress involves decreasing local entropy for some purpose, whether it is to manufacture a product or send an ordered byte stream. All reductions of local entropy - that is, movement away from thermodynamic equilibrium, require an expenditure of energy. Thus progress - indeed, all of human civilization - I guess even all of life - requires energy input. We require more because we desire to decrease our local entropy.
Parent
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Every single one of these things takes energy. Now, if you really think it is our duty to live without those things, let me point you to your nearest third world nation where you can spend the rest of your life not consuming more and more energy. The simple fact of the matter is that as time moves forward, so will technology. If you want to reap the rewards of that technological progression, you will need to consume energy.
Could we simply just stop and say enough is enough? Perhaps you could, but most people won't. In the same way your parents or grand parents gave up washing clothes by hand for the convince of it and now you would likely never give up the convince, so to will you accept technology and raise children who will refuse to give it up... and that is to say nothing of the BILLIONS of people in this world that don't even have what you have, see what you do, and demand the same thing. If you want to talk about an environmental disaster in the making, picture 5 billion other people in this world that don't have the same standard of living as you who will not be content remain have nots.
Technology is the only answer. 6+ billion people living like Americans, or even Europeans can not be sustained. Those people WILL rise. We can either have clean technology to meet their energy needs when they get here, or watched the number of dirty energy producing plants in this world rise exponentially. Personally, I would rather see us working towards technological solutions to meet the demands that will come, rather then watch as 5 billion people go through another messy industrial revolution.
Parent
The good part is ... (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, you'd want to be far away if a leak happened, in a remote control centre.
That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant (Score:5, Funny)
Here in Colorado, USA, we're getting a new coal fired electrical plant. Stick with proven technology, we always say.
Re:That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Read about Fusion (Score:5, Informative)
Fusion Power [wikipedia.org]
Some interesting quotes:
"The natural product of the fusion reaction is a small amount of helium, which is completely harmless to life and does not contribute to global warming. "
"The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tend to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Furthermore, there are fewer different species, and they tend to be non-volatile and biologically less active. As opposed to nuclear fission, where there is hardly any possibility to influence the spectrum of fission products, the problems can be further reduced by careful choice of the materials used."
"Although fusion power uses nuclear technology, the overlap with nuclear weapons technology is small. "
Can't we try to have headlines that make sense? (Score:4, Informative)
Give it a f*cking rest! (Score:5, Insightful)
And you Yanks are always accusing everyone of being anti-American, can you not see any hypocrisy?
For the record I am not French but I think the EU deserved to have this in their backyard - after all the EU is the major contributor. This is fantastic news, if this works then at a stroke the world will have access to what is essentially unlimited energy. No more greenhouse gasses, smog and you will be able to run a Pentium 7 without causing a blackout across the entire continent.
ITER is a fiasco! (Score:5, Interesting)
Many decades ago the international fusion community put all of its chips on the Tokamak. It has been a disaster.
Even if a Tokamak could produce break-even fusion ( getting more energy out than you put in) the engineering obstacles to creating an economically successful reactor are daunting.
Many years ago, the OFE sponsored a study, Project Aries, of the costs of a Tokamak reactor. Even using the usual optimistic assumptions, the cost came in way above solar and wind power, let alone fossil fuels.
Another symptom of the problem is that three times in a row, projects to build larger Tokamak have collapsed in the design stage. That is, even before anything was build, none could come up with a working design. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the latest attempt, collapsed as the price tag spiraled above $20 billion, but now is resurrected. I assume that they found some technical advances, or just "cooked the books" space-station style to justify it.
The whole OFE degenerated into a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" process where the lab directories divvied up the pie. All non-Tokamak ideas were cut off, including the one I worked on.( more below).Congress cut the OFE budget almost in half a 10 years ago in response to this.
Now for a blatant plug. In the 70s I worked on a small project at the University of Miami, the Trisops project, which was defunded. The amount of money was not an issues ( our request was quite small), but the non-Tokamak nature, and the nerve of the principal investigator, Dan Wells, to point out that the Tokamac was unworkable.
Last decade the Trisops machine was moved from the University of Miami, to Lanham Md, with a small NASA grant, but there is not money to run it. You can see a report on it.
Another interesting project, the Plasmak(TM) project that is being run by Paul Koloc ( out of his garage!!).
The holy grail on fusion research is a stable plasma structure. The Trisops project achieved it one way. Paul has noted that ball lightning, which has been known for millennia, is a stable plasma structure. He has machine that produces ball lightning, and is measuring it. He gets no DOE funding of course.
This is a update of an earlier post Don't sell your Exxon Stock [slashdot.org]
ITER is a grand idea but ....... (Score:4, Informative)
all the water of all the rivers in the world combined
If we could figure out a way to harness it, we would be good on
power for a VERY long time indeed
http://www.valleyweb.com/fundytides/ [valleyweb.com]
The 3 gorges damn is huge, the world's largest dam at present time,
but the power generation possible at fundy is just staggering
I think underwater screened turbines would prevent sea life
from being churned up, and prevent silting like the 'dam'type
hydro electric tidal generators built in france
Some under sea power turbines are being deployed near malaysia
Also in the fusion arena, I think the bubble fusion principle
makes alot more sense economically, and has already demonstrated
that it will work
Keep in mind it is not cold fusion, it is high temp based
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/0403
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
France says NIMBY? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't agree with these thoughts.. but I can hear them.
(puts tin-foil hat back on)
Parent
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:5, Informative)
Ever wonder why there are so many words of French origin in the English language? Familiar with that time period when France de facto dominated England, and all people of culture/nobility in England spoke French? Did you know, in fact, that the origin of swear words (such as "shit") were that they were used by the lower classes (and are more authentic english) while classier ways of saying these things (such as "manure") were used by the upper classes (and are thus French).
France, like every other country in Europe, has won, lost, invaded, and been invaded countless times. So stop with this nonsense already.
Parent
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:5, Insightful)
- American Revolution
Sorry, Ameri-centrists, but France saved our ass on this one. Saying the colonists defeated Britain on their own is like saying the Northern Alliance defeated the Taliban. That's a little bit of hyperbole, but France was nevertheless instrumental in our victory. I try to tone down my French-bashing just based on this debt of gratitude.
As for the World Wars, I'm wondering what country you could have put in France's position and expected to do better. Holding off Germany for years in WWI while the U.S. decided whether or not they wanted to do anything isn't something to be scoffed at. U.S. gloating over these wars reminds me of two boxers going at it for ten rounds, and then in the eleventh round another fighter who had been sitting safetly in the locker room jumps into the ring and pops out the fatigued opponent, and then mocks the other fighter for not having the strength to do it themselves.
Parent
Re:I don't think it will work. (Score:5, Informative)
IANAP (I am not a physicist), but here's how I understand it. Nature loves middle-weight neuclei. Extremely light neuclei (e.g. Hydrogen) and extremely heavy ones (e.g. Plutonium) are less stable.
In both cases, you release energy by moving towards middle-weight elements. If I recall correctly, Iron has the most stable neucleus of all. The raw materials for fission, such as Uranium and Plutonium, are much heavier than Iron. By breaking up the neuclei into lighter elements, you move closer to the ideal middle-weight stable elements, thus releasing energy. Likewise, the raw materials for fission, such as Hydrogen, are much lighter than Iron. By fusing their nuclei, into heavier elements, you move closer to the ideal middle-weight elements, so you release energy.
There's no perpetual motion involved. You can't get energy back by reversing either type of reaction. For example, you'd have to put energy IN, if you wanted to fission Helium back into Hydrogen, because you'd be moving further away from the ideal middle-weigh neuclei.
So, if someone asks you to invest in their iron-fuelled nuclear power plant, your money is probably best invested elsewhere!
Parent
Re:Whew, that was close. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent