France Will Be Home To Fusion Plant 744
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.
Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:3, Informative)
You know, because it would be horrible to have this as an emmissions-free source of energy. Incredible.
Green Peacers have never been the type to use calm logic. It is nuclear, therefore it is bad.
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:5, Interesting)
They shoud approach Paul Allen (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:3, Funny)
Well without stopping to ask a chemist what h20 was, the Green party imediately issued a press release calling for a nation-wide ban on all of this dangerous chemical. Needless to say it would be rather difficult giv
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:3, Informative)
Patrick Moore (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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]
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. By your "fusion will save us, even though we haven't made it work in the last 50 years, and it is always 50 years in the future, and we could have used that time to build solar sites, and wind sites, and tidal energy sites, and ..." line of thinking our ancestors would have a few wheels scattered around. But nobody would ever connect two with an axel to m
Re:Er, no. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Manahattan Project went ahead with its atomic pile testing before the smarty men had confirmed that the pile would not trigger an unstoppable world-destroying chain reaction. That's called cutting a corner, and that's probably why The Bomb was ready in time for its wartime application, instead of being ready ten or fifteen years later, after all the due diligence had been completed.
So I'm with the grandparent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:3, Informative)
care to source that "real quote"?
the greenpeace press release on the fusion plant in question is here [greenpeace.org]. i didn't see your quote in it anywhere.
i would further suggest that, if you are actually intetested in following greenpeace's position on this and similar matters, t
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.
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.
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.
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the point. Even if ITER works, we're still many decades away from commercial fusion power. More improvement would result from spending that money in optimizing what we already have.
Also, IIRC Greenpeace grudgingly supports nuclear technology because it's the lesser evil.
Re:Let the E-Wars begin! (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the word they use in reference to this particular project is "madness." Here [eubusiness.com] is an article discussing their condemnation of this project.
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.
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.
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.
not the french green (Score:3, Interesting)
Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy (Score:3, Insightful)
It won't happen with either, so long as oil remains absurdly profitable and we're not choking to death on carbon-dioxide.
Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy (Score:3, Informative)
It was originally expected that "fast breeder reactors" would be used to recycle and re-enrich the spent fuel rods that came out of power plants. Instead, Carter used execuitive order to put a blanket ban on those types of plants. Fast breeder reactors would drastically cut hte amount of high level radioactive waste that comes out of power plants and cut the costs of operating a plant.
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)
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!
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!
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they do both. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
--
Need a used Sprint charger? [ebay.com]
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.
cute chicks? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're just dying to find a nice highly-paid computer programmer like me. Then they can afford a hybrid car and go out to lunch with all their cute volunteer friends. And when I come home she'll tell me about all of the important volunteer activities she did that day. And I'll tell her about my day. About how my ideas are helping my huge company become
Re:cute chicks? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:cute chicks? (Score:3, Funny)
*blank stare* What?
Re:cute chicks? (Score:3, Funny)
Although, knowing how to play guitar will get you more of both kinds of girls than being a rich programmer.
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.
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.
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?
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:3, Insightful)
which is why they advocate for safe technology (wind and solar power) that is economically and environmentally responsible
Note that wind power, particularly high density sited systems capable of powering more than a farmhouse, have their own consequences: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs / bdes/altamont/altamont.html [biologicaldiversity.org]
Solar installations raise similar issues, related primarily to siting. The best solar power generation locations
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.
it has nothing to do with "values" or "rights" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:3, Insightful)
To say that Nature has an inherent value apart from humans is a fallicy.
For anything to have value, one must say of value to whom? Values and judgements and ideas and theories all fail to exist without someone or something to HAVE Those values. Without mankind, the planet could burn. Does a dead planet like mars have the same value? Do we weep when a supernova destroys an empty, lifeless system of planets who al
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. So why are we in Iraq again?
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
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.
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.
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh. That's not really a problem in countries that consume the most energy and cry for more. Wasteful consumption and public contempt for any conservation efforts (just witness all the dismissive comments under this article) are the worst problems. But I don't really care anymore; we, as a human race, will get what we deserve. Too bad it will be the future generations who'll end up paying for our spending.
Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole point of environmentalism is to preserve a sustainable habitat for OUR species. That includes protecting other species - it even probably includes limiting our own growth. But to an outsider, that sounds like "exterminate all humans and let the snowy plover live in peace".
That's not a meme that's going to gain wide acceptance among the sane and rational. But whatever floats your "Rainbow Warrior".
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.
Available just in time, (Score:3, Funny)
A little bit disappointed, but there's an upside (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, France is OK, because they are one of the countries with highest % of nuclear energy. So much so, in fact, that they make a lot of good money exporting it.
And get this: one of the largest importers (the largest?) offrench electric energy is Germany, who have outlawed and disbanded their nuclear plants due to Green misguided pressure, and are now
a) polluting themselves with coal plants, which actually produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants of same energy output (not to mention other pollutants).
b) paying for el. energy to France, which is produced by nuclear plants which are close enough to Germany, that if a meltdown happened, they would be just as affected!
There is something humorous in all this.
Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid (Score:3, Insightful)
kW.h prices for indiv
Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Here in Illinois (Score:3, Funny)
We're going back to wood. The initial leading choice for the fuel is oak, since those are the biggest, oldest trees we have. When those are gone, the maple crop should be ready.
Re:That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant (Score:4, Funny)
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)
Re:Can't we try to have headlines that make sense? (Score:3, Interesting)
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]
Re:ITER is a fiasco! (Score:3, Informative)
I agree. The biggest problem with the large tokomak designs is the scale, and hence price tag, required for a self-sustaining reaction. The large price tag and long construction times mean that prototyping is essentially a decades-long process subject both to political whims and the need to be used for years after it is built just to make the building of it worthwhile.
Imagine how fast computer science would advance if each new motherboard required an act
Re:ITER is a fiasco! (Score:3, Interesting)
Score one for bureaucracy (Score:3, Insightful)
So it took 20 years for ITER to make a decision? That would make even Washington D.C. bureaucrats proud...
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
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:2, Informative)
At least the French and British decided to stand up against a dictator rather then only joining in to defend personal interests ...
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.
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:3, Funny)
The French have one military v
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:3, Funny)
That never stops bugging me.
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.
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:3, Insightful)
The French, the British, the German, the Russian, the Italian, the Austrian (or these nation states ancestors) have all at different times dominated military in Europe and too often crea
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, France got us into the whole Vietnam thing in the first place. And, while there were many mistakes, clearly the biggest one was not following through with post-war support of the the south Vietnamese government.
And now France wants us to cut off support to the post-war Iraqi gov
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:3)
I remember getting kicked out of our IRC channel, because I called a guy "Frenchie" This was well before we (the US) even started talking about going into Iraq. At least a year in fact.
Don't assume that all French bashing is done in malice over the Iraqi War. While it's true that most of it is because of this (hey, it became popular to make fun of the French.) But some people just made fun of France before then, just because.
Besid
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:3, Interesting)
1. "US, which won the war in your history book..." This suggests that this is what you imagine "our" history books must say. All I can say is that I'm reasonably well-read, and I hope you find it reassuring that none of the WWI books I've read say that. To the contrary, the ones I've read all give a pretty balanced account of the War. In fact, if the U.S. is lauded, it is usually for our stan
Re:10 Years? (Score:2, Funny)
Where I come from, 2005 - 1985 != 10
Re:How do the people of France like this? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but how do they taste?
France says NIMBY? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:France says NIMBY? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How do the people of France like this? (Score:3, Insightful)
The job market for physicists is tough, but even so, I imagine they'd have trouble attracting top-notch people to the Sahara or other sparsely inhabited (or AIDS-decimated) parts of Africa.
Two headed rhinos and elephants would be cool, though.
Re:How do the people of France like this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Too many people have this stigma about anything with the word nuclear in it that they panic and envision 50 foot ants eating them. Nuclear = dealing with the nucleus of the atom. Nuclear fusion = combining two light nuclei to make a heavier nucleus and release energy. Other than neutron activation of the surrounding material (the immediate area around the reaction, since it likely to be well shielded) there is no residual radiation (
Re:How do the people of France like this? (Score:3, Funny)
You can put it in my front yard. It has got to look better out my window than the freeway I look at now. (The freeway is ~ 1/2 mile away, close enough to be ugly, far enough that there is room for a fusion reactor to block that view)
I like the swamps in my backyard, even if they do breed billions of mosquitoes. I I'm technically a NIMBY guy. They can have the front yard though.
Re:Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't agree with these thoughts.. but I can hear them.
(puts tin-foil hat back on)
Re:Whew, that was close. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Whew, that was close. (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither do I. My point is that the French complain sometimes, very loudly, when other countries (like the US) do things unilaterally, or suggest that maybe some partners aren't worth having. Then, they do the very same thing. But again, nice wine, cheese, and Greenpeace boat sinking. So, I somewhat forgive them that little bit of hypocrisy.
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!
Re:I don't think it will work. (Score:3, Informative)
It's clearer by just saying:
The extra energy comes from the destruction of matter which is converted to energy.
For example, in a fusion reaction, the reactants (usually deuterium and/or tritium) have a greater mass than what's left behind (helium and neutrons). Since e=mc^2, you get a huge amount of energy for a small amount of lost mass.