France Will Get Fusion Reactor

I didn't think a practical/efficient cold fusion reaction had been developed even conceptually yet.

Solving the hydrogen problem? Isn't fusion the making of helium from fusing hydrogen atoms?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DanMan32\";p=\"102469)</div>

I don't think a practical/efficient fusion reaction, period, has been developed yet. (Wasn't cold fusion basically a pipe dream?)

 

I read that blurb on Yahoo and noticed it was a VERY long term goal, maybe up to 50 years away.

The EU is fronting 40%, the United States 10%, China 10%, Japan 10%, and Russia 10% (Maybe discounted to Rubbles or whatever).

It's nice they're trying though.

 

50 years????...... perhaps my 2005 Prius will be due for a replacement by then and I'll buy one of those new fandanged powered machines. Oh, well, the anticipation is worth the wait ( as Yogi Berra might have said)

 

Sounds like a good idea but lets analyze this.

First of all, this is not cold fusion. Scientists understand fusion quite significantly. And many scientists, though not all, feel that the fusion reaction can be controlled safely. However, what is not known is whether fusion can be controlled safely and economically!!!

Fission is how current reactors work. The fission reaction of splitting atoms has been found to indeed be controllable, but it produces dangerous radioactive waste. Fusion is not supposed to do that. It is supposed to make lots of energy CLEANLY.

Now, does this boast about the cleanliness (and safety) of fusion sound a little bit like the fission reactor boast from the 1950's that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter?

This consortium is paying $10 billion for this experimental plant in France. Now lets not forget the billions in overruns on the Chunnel between France and England. Thus I think it is safe to suggest that this fusion reactor in France is much more likely to cost $50 billion. Can you imagine if that kind of money was spread out around the world looking for better conservation of energy, as well as wind/ solar and tide power?

But aren't the words "spread out" the central key to this question?

I've argued before that the issue over what gets the money and the backing for study and implementation has less to do with the scientific feasibility of any energy source, than in the business model that allows for profits from that energy source being "concentratable". When you spread out the research, and therefore spread out the science, you also spread out the profits, potentially to millions of people. A true breakthrough in solar power such that everyone had a power plant on their home roof, and roof of their car, would badly damage the current business models of the profits from the creation of energy being concentrated into the hands of a few over the many.

But when you centralize the creation of power, whether that be in fusion or fission or even in oil, gas or coal fired plants, you centralize the profits into the hands of a smaller group, ie in this case, a "Consortium".

And I would contend that this is why this plant is being considered. NOT for the science at all, but for the continued centralization of the production of power.

And who knows, maybe this project will result in someone figuring out how to perfect small portable fusion reactors that run on "cold fusion". I doubt it, because if everyone had their own power plant, how can profits be centralized. But if they do, maybe there will be a market again for old Deloreans.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"102517)</div>

The cost of the Chunnel has nothing to do with the cost of this project. You can't logically conclude that there will be cost overruns on this project because of cost overruns on another absolutely unrelated project.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mike Lane\";p=\"102521)</div>

I find your naivete charmingly refreshing.

Seriously, I did not mean to compare the cost overuns of the Chunnel to this project. What I meant to compare was cost overuns at this point in world history to traditional cost overuns that always occur for all projects.

And the current formula seems to be to multiply the original estimate by a factor of 5.

And if you count the war in Iraq and the boondoggle that Hallibuton got, that factor might be closer to 8.

 

I would have to agree that:
1) there will be overuns.
2) this is an attempt to prevent an inevitable switch to decentralized power.

Then again, if they can succeed, great. A successful fusion reactor would be better than fission. I'm not so sure I want an experimental reactor in my town though.
The problem is, we'll be out of oil in 50 years and the resulting crises will make the whole point moot. Unless of course we go the route of decentralized renewable/alternative power and switch to electric cars, and etc. and get it all in place BEFORE the oil runs out.

 

Just imagine how much MORE progress the US alone could have made had it chosen to invest $400B in fusion instead of VietNam Revisited?

 

ITERITER is a "hot" fusion reactor, where you use very high pressures and temperatures to drive the fusion of light nuclei to release E=mc[sup:8b830b49b5]2[/sup:8b830b49b5] energy. As was pointed out by someone else, the scientific principles are very well known; this is nothing like so-called "cold" fusion. It's what drives our sun!

The ITER web site simply says that ITER means "the way" in Latin, but it probably started out as International Tokamak Engineering Reactor or something like that. It is aiming to fuse deuterium (hydrogen with one extra neutron) and tritium (hydrogen with two extra neutrons). It will make tritium "on the fly" from neutron flux on lithium, while it is relatively easy to get deuterium.

Fusion reactors are expected to be considerably cleaner than present fission reactors. However, they involve huge neutron fluxes which will induce radioactivity in the reactor components. (But keep in mind that a typical coal plant emits LOTS more radioactivity than a fission plant, due to atmospheric release of trace radionuclides in the coal). Of course part of the engineering job is to select materials where this induced radioactivity is minimized. Because fusion only proceeds at very high temperatures and pressures, there is no real chance of any sort of runaway process here with breach of the magnetic plasma confinement system; the density will quickly dive below the difficult-to-achieve conditions needed for fusion.

Will fusion play an important role in our energy future? It's possible. Certainly so-called "scientific break-even", where for a few tenths of a second the fusion reaction produces more power than what is needed to maintain fusion conditions, has been achieved in previous test systems. However, it's a long way from practical break-even. The running joke has been "Fusion is the energy source of the future, and always will be." Still, given the fact that the era of cheap oil will end, I feel it is certainly worthwhile to see if a practical fusion power reactor can be made.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood\";p=\"102545)</div>

I do not believe oil will just suddenly run out. I think what will happen is that it will get progressively more expensive as we are left only with more-costly-to-extract reserves. As this happens, investment in alternative energy sources will increase as venture capitalists and energy companies sniff the future (which is already happening). As oil increases in cost, and alternatives are improved in cost-effectiveness, the transition will take place even if we continue to have shortsighted political leaders who cannot think beyond Halliburton for energy policies.

Of course I would prefer more rational planning of our energy future with less CO2 release...

 

altaskier:
I truly hope you are right. It is the best mankind can hope for. However, the laws of biology don't really go that way. When important resources cannot meet the demand (amongst animals as well as humans) violence erupts. As oil runs low, what will prevent countries from fighting over it? Hoarding these resources is an instinct. Just look at the chaos after the oil embargoes in the 70's at your neighborhood gas station.

Besides, Saudi Arabia could just stop pumping overnight if say, their leadership changes and the new leaders are anti-American. An overnight shut down of the Saudi oil flow would not allow us the time to adjust. BTW, this is why we are in Iraq, not for Iraq, but to have a regional presence for this very scenario).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood\";p=\"102561)</div>

I think this is the single biggest reason why American energy policy should NOT be based upon more drilling in 2005-2020 or so.

Leave our oil in the ground for the future, and let the middle east use up their supplies first.

Yet, the GW plan relies almost exclusively on more drilling. And even with total ownership of all 3 branchs of government, GW still can't get it passed after 5 years trying. For the life of me I still cannot understand how GW's approval rating can be in double digits.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood\";p=\"102561)</div>

It has been widely speculated that Saudi Arabia has all their oil fields mined. If there is a revolution, the fields will blow amd their oil will be gone for 20 years.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood\";p=\"102561)</div>

That's 9/11 not 9/11 what 9/11 GW 9/11 said 9/11 the 9/11 other 9/11 day.