Giant International Fusion Reactor Draws Nearer

nnnneedles writes "BBC is reporting that scientists are deciding on where to build the world's first big fusion reactor. The international effort is described as the boldest nuclear initiative since the Manhattan Project, and holds promise for future unlimited, clean energy. The choice on where to build the reactor currently stands between Japan and France, but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq." There's also an AP story.

Comments

Hot fusion is not "clean" nuclear power.

[Dr. Zowie]

I worked at the General Atomic D3D facility in San Diego, the 1980s. The biggest limitation on the rate at which they could explore the experimental parameter space was the number of neutrons that the machine would create. The ultimate end of all modern tokamaks is to be turned into low-level radioactive waste when the machine itself becomes activated by the free neutrons liberated by the fusion process.

The more conventional gamma rays, alpha radiation (helium nucleii), and beta rays (fast moving electrons) are dangerous enough but at least they aren't infectious: you can irradiate food with gamma rays and it doesn't turn radioactive. Neutrons get absorbed by nearby nuclei, which then themselves become unstable and radioactive. Ick.

That's not to say we shouldn't explore nuclear fusion as a power source -- just that it is not the perfectly clean energy source that it is often made out to be.

All your base belong to US

[photonic]

From the article:

The Japanese site of Rokkasho-mura has the advantages of proximity to a port, a ground of solid bedrock and a nearby US military base.

Why is that relevant? What are they going to do, recharge their battery powered Humvees?

Indeed, the EU favors France over Spain

[stevesliva]

The site selection has nothing to do with anyone's position on Iraq or else France would have the support of the other countries as well. As it stands, they only have the support of the EU for typical reasons.

The Spanish opposition disagrees-- they say that the EU selected the French site because of politics. The NY Times mentions here that the Spanish political losers think Spain's support of the war in Iraq killed the chances of the reactor being built there.

Re:good point...but

[deglr6328]

Yes, the "fusion power will be workable in N years" mantra that's been heard from many sources for the past 40 years is frustrating, and considering that here it is 2003 and we still havent even reached ignition in any laboratory reactor is dissapointing to say the least. However, it is important to note that during this time fusion research hase come a VERY long way. I don't see how this progress can continue forever with no results.

Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld.....

[the_mad_poster]

I love the smell of krispy karma in the morning.

People can believe what they like but I don't want it forced on me.

Soooo... you believe that it's wrong to passively "force" religious beliefs on someone, but it's acceptable to agressively enforce secularism?

I hate to tell you "babe", but seeing a head scarf, cross, etc. doesn't force you to believe anything. If you're mind is so pathetically weak that you can be "forcibly" converted to a religion simply by viewing it's symbolic imagery, chances are pretty good that you're so fucked up right now by everday advertising that it's not really going to matter anyway.

There's a difference between not letting the school engage in or push any particular religious viewpoint on the class as a whole. It's a wholly different story when individual students decide that they wish to make their religious beliefs known or wish to engage in a religious activity at school. Barring disruptive behavior that interferes with other students, the school/government has no business telling individuals what they can and can't do regarding the subject.

There is no difference between a government that forces a religious belief on its people and one that forces it's people not to have a religion. I will actively fight any government official that would suggest EITHER or those paths was a good one.

The big problem is neutron flux

[baz00f]

I vividly recall a physics professor of mine, about 25 years ago, who worked on fusion, saying: "It will be almost impossible. The neutron flux for efficient, continous power generation is so intense that no known materials could sustain the exposure". He talked about materials getting brittle- the materials in closest contact with the fusion core would fail (in weeks, months) and there was no cost effective way to deal with that for long term, stable, low-cost power generation.

Well, if you look at the topics of a conference (11th International Conference on Fusion Reactor Materials) in Japan just a few weeks ago, that problem has not gone away yet.