Slashdot Mirror
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.
is eating at French restaurants in DC these days.
Time to move on.
Last time I checked, Canada, Russia and China preferred the Japanese site. And I seem to recall they all opposed the Iraq War.
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.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
"So now we know where to build it, and who will help in doing it. But how do we make the darn thing WORK?"
Fabulous concept, but we've been 20+ years from having fusion power for about 50 years now... Of course, "we can do it in 20 years" is bureaucrat speak for "we don't have a clue, but why don't you give us some money anyway...."
Never underestimate the power of politically motivated stubborness.
/sig
Wouldn't fusion have to have been made practical for terrestrial power generation before anything like this should be started on? Or did I miss a memo?
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
Not to sound like an ass or something but this seems like a really childish behaviour.
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.
We wouldn't want them to surrender it two two drunk germans on a weekend bender, after all.
Not to mention the French sensibly rejected calling it the "Freedom Reactor".
What, with their obvious tectonic stability, vast distance from any faults and subduction zones, and lack of volcanic activity, they are the perfect choice for building a big, expensive, multinational fusion reactor.
Personally, my preferred choice would be Canada, somewhere on the Canadian Shield.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Assuming this works, yeah, let's build it on an island chain!!! A nice spot isolated from the rest of the world, where it would take a massive effort to get the power to other useful places, like oh, say, continental Europe...
I do so hate political BS like this. Hey, Japan has contributed quite a lot of tech to the world since WWII, and use a lot of energy, and perhaps deserve something like this. But really, let's not ignore the realities of power distribution in selecing a site for such a huge project.
Oh, wait, our cowboy-in-chief doesn't understand the realities of power distribution, or any of that other nasty scienceish-stuff. What could I have had in mind, posing such a silly thought?
Oops, gotta go, time for my 6:00 cloned liver transplant in Vanuatu, soon the wealthiest nation on Earth for not letting fictional morality dictate reality...
They should build it in the northeast US, like in "Infinite Jest." Then, if/when the entire region becomes uninhabitable, we can force the Canadians to accept the "gift" of our land, and they, in turn, can "cave" to separatist Quebecois demands and give them that region.
Cheap reliable energy forever and ever, and everybody wins, except the would-be French. =)
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
There is a huge difference between "peace loving" and "cowardly." "Peace loving" would be a moral stand and it is darn hard to claim a moral stand when you are selling someone war materials forbidden under UN treaties. The opposed the war to hide their own guilt, not out of some moral stand.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
which uses enormous power hungry electromagnets to compress hydrogen to the point at which it fuses. Unfortunately, this means that even if it is actually capable of producing more power than it consumes (like they claim on the web site) it will be monumentally inefficient compared to more modern fusion reactor designs, like the zMachine
It's not because they are peace-loving (France doesn't exactly qualify, historically), and it doesn't even have much to do with them not supporting the war in Iraq, though that made a good litmus test.
Basically, the current US administration wants to hurt, as badly as is conveniently possible, and as often as is conveniently possible, any county that does not cooperate fully with the whims of the US government. Regardless of the convictions and ideals of the populace or the government.
So, since France's people overwhelmingly did not want to be a party to the war in Iraq, and because France's government actually listened to its people, instead of listening primarily to the US and only secondarily to its people, it is clear that France is not sufficiently in thrall to the US, and therefor must be punished.
Iraq was just a test. France failed.
Or passed, depending on your viewpoint.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Our crappy Liberal party decided that we didn't deserve the fusion reactor and dropped Canada out of the race. It's too bad because we were thought to have a pretty good site lined up.
:(
They talked about it in a recent Quirks and Quarks episode (available in Ogg Vorbis!) Really sad.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
Ive seen this one... Japan gets it. They gain ulimited energy, use it to fuel their great cities, only to have their robotic servants rise up and enslave them, all the while unleashing a great evil upon the world, that only a perky, well-drawn, female scientist and a guy with pointy hair can stop... meanwhile the villain is secretly planning to use the mega energy device as a weapon to destroy the world... Then Godzilla comes from the Island of Monsters and smushes everything... and we turn them away thanks to the loveable japanese children who sing to Gamera and those two twins that dance for Mothra... and umm... um... and just when Ultron's energy is about to give up, Skippy says, "Ultron I believe in you!" Then half the characters die in a horrible holocaust, while one or two tokens who might've drawn close together to each other in the conflict end up going away to pursue profitable careers in archeaology...
http://www.beanleafpress.com
holds promise for future unlimited, clean energy
the same promise that politicians will stop lying, no more taxes, bosses wont be incompetent jerks, women will make sense and life will stop hurting?
god i love the holidays.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
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.
Who in the US administration actually stated that the US opposed a French site because of their opposition to the war in Iraq? What does this have to do with Iraq!? Wouldn't France be the obvious choice? The French have the most experience, e.g. keeping a whole country full of fission reactors humming along.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Why is that relevant? What are they going to do, recharge their battery powered Humvees?
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
I had thought that the international community was hesitant to build ITER in Japan because of earthquakes. But, I found this article that seems to say that earquakes will not be a problem for this cite, for anyone who is interested.
Long live Schrodinger's cat...
Wait a minute, what the hell am I saying???
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
They said _ALMOST_ limitless.
Get it right next time.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yes, but no-one ever suggested building the tokamak in Northern Ireland.
James F.
How do you reach that conclusion exactly? Other than not supporting a war without a second resolution I haven't noticed the French supporting much terrorism. You never hear people in Camp X-Ray breaking down and saying "okay, I give in. M. Chirac made me do it."
France does have a large muslim population due to its old (fairly disastrous) colonial association with Algeria but, as many people have pointed out, muslim != terrorist. I'm sure France is making every effort to root out any terrorists that may be hiding there.
There is far more evidence for active terrorist cells in Frankfurt, Hamburg and Birmingham than France. That doesn't make Germany an untrustworthy country, either.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Can you back up the accusation that France harbors support for terrorism?
Also, can you consider that there is no "need" to adapt fusion power to weapons, it is called the H-bomb and I'm pretty sure France already has them.
excuse me but why is this modded +5 informative? The Z-machine is no more modern than 10 years more modern than the tokamak and it sure as hell isn't efficient (in terms of fusion production) by any means. It's barely producing a million neutrons in its implosions; billions of times less than the energy input into the implosion.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
No western country that I know of (except possibly a few conflicted South American states) supports terrorism in any form. If you really mean harbors support for terrorism, I'd say the US probably harbors more terrorists (knowingly or not) than a good deal of other nations combined.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
The Americans are against building a huge, experimental nuclear fusion reactor in France because they don't like the French? I'd demand it be built smack dab in the middle of Paris. What could possibly go wrong?
I want the fire back.
Little wonder there's no talk of having the site in the U.S. -- if the international community were to look at the current condition here for nuclear reactor safety and security, and the stance on public disclosure in this regard -- heck, the U.S. shouldn't even be part of the proceedings. Especially after the French Fry ban in the Rayburn Building Cafeteria.
Oh, you seriously believe the French government sponsors terrorists, or would ever let terrorists access to highly sensible technological facilities? Can I see sources, facts, proofs?
American media has once again played on words. Terrorism is relative; Americans call them terrorists when they are against them and "freedom fighters" when they are on theirs.
And I would like much better this reactor being in France than being in a country which is actually the puppet of the nation most likely to use it for war (ya, that's YOU if you can't read between the lines). We have seen that treaties didn't mean much for the US, so I would let such a toy at baby Bush's grasp.
I'd argue that reason the US doesn't want the test reactor in France is because of:
1. Physical control of the test reactor.
2. Impact on local economy of all the international funds used in construction.
I suspect that #2 comes into play more than #1 - Japan is a valued political and economic partner that's currently still in the middle of a really bad economic slump. We'd rather reward them with the mega-bucks that will get pumped into the economy as a result of the construction and staffing of the reactor, rather than giving these lush proceeds to the French.
This is not a 'claim'; several Tokamaks have acheived 'break-even' on energy-in vs. enevergy-extracted, notably the SPHERE project from Rutherford Appleton Laboratories, IIRC.
James F.
You turn some matter into energy. How do you think fission reactors work?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Somthing I've always wondered is, how does this work?
I understand the most of it: B-feild presses the Hydergen together, pressure mounts, then they fuse, releasing heat, right? Well, in and among those big, superconductive wires, how do you get the heat from the reactor out to a boiler? Or do they intend to line the thing with lots of little thermapiles, like an RTG or the like? It seems to me that it would be hard to get all that energy released into a useful form...
Little wonder there's no talk of having the site in the U.S. -- if the international community were to look at the current condition here for nuclear reactor safety and security, and the stance on public disclosure in this regard -- heck, the U.S. shouldn't even be part of the proceedings. (Unless of course Halliburton's doing the infrastructure buildout).
"Hi, we're the guys who orchestrated the French Fry Ban in the Rayburn Office Building Cafeteria, we know exactly how to run everything, who is and is not in the Axis of Evil, and you can't play Nuclear Reactor with us."
he U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq.
So instead, they thought they'd like to build it in the country that bombed Pearl Harbor?
The most viable known methods of generating and sustaining fusion both use and generate radioactive material.
The best fuel for igniting fusion is a tritium/deuterium mix because it fuses at a lower temperature. Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen with 2 additional neutrons. It is "bred" from lithium, but it's still a very radioactive substance. Technically speaking, fusion reactions do use radioactive material as fuel. DD reactions are possible, but they require higher temperatures and are less likely to be viable.
Secondly, the DT reaction emits neutrons. It's a simple matter of math - you have a deuterium and tritium nucleus which collide and produce helium. There's a neutron left over, with high amount energy and no electric charge. It will "ping" right out of the magnetically confined plasma. Most such neutrons will be absorbed by the lithium shielding (creating more tritium) but some will fuse with other parts of the reactor, creating, you guessed it, radioactive waste.
Commercially viable fusion reactors, if they ever exist, will almost certainly produce radioactive byproducts. It will be a great improvement on fission power, as there will be less waste in total with a shorter half-life, but radioactive waste is radioactive waste. Like fission waste, fusion waste will be expensive to deal with and be around for many generations.
For more info, here's a link to the Wikipedia entry.
Terrorism is NOT relative. Terrorism involves targeting non-combatives outside of a war effort. There is nothing relative about it. It is murder in the name of politics.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
For all those that are undoubtely going to post something about how America and President Bush in particular are evil for doing something like this here's a little factoid:
/ eu rope/27BRIE5.html?ex=1072069200&en=bf36a06d6e81a8a b&ei=5070
Europe did it first to Spain for it's SUPPORT of the Iraq war. If you don't believe me here's a link (NYT -registration required etc..):
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/27/international
Not that's I'd expect Slashdot (or the BBC) to get the whole story. As much as I like Slashdot this place is definitely ultra liberal and has an agenda to go with that... so always helps to verify anything you hear on this first before you believe it. (As everyone should on ALL media sources before they go spouting it as fact)
What an accomplishment it will be to construct the world's largest non-functional power plant!
even if it is actually capable of producing more power than it consumes (like they claim on the web site) it will be monumentally inefficient compared to more modern fusion reactor designs
Do you know what efficient means?
can you say more about this? Your link is broken. I've never heard of the sphere project, the only tokamak I've ever heard of breaking even was the JET at ~13MW.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
No, that's true. Underneath, however, the US is highly hypocritical. However, as you say, they have only one face. This is why most of its people don't have any idea about where their country have supported tyrants and terrorists, such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, SaudiArabia, Chile, etc. They don't have two faces, only one, and it can't speak except when saying "freedom, freedom, freedom", while underneath that mask, they are regime changing (Saddam was supported by the CIA, and Chile had their elected leader overthrown and replaced with a dictator), meddling around (as in when they supported Osama), and being generally hypocrites (as when they sold weapons to Iran while threatening everyone else who dared do the same). Freedom lovers, my ass. Oh, and by the way, this will get modded down as flamebait by everyone who doesn't want to realize the truth. Mod it offtopic, if anything, and avoid making yourself look like a brainwashed fool.
I believe the original poster is referring to economic, not thermodynamic efficiency. Pulse power reactors (like Z) are expected to be much cheaper to operate (per watt output) than machines like ITER.
Yeah, but then we wouldn't have anywhere to film epic movies. Maybe they could use NZ instad of australia for post apocolyptic type movies then...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
The English will have no choice but to either fund the French effort or invade. As the rest of the EU would frown on invading, that just leaves making sure the French reactor worked perfectly.
In turn, with two fairly substantial doners then backing a French effort, other countries would see no point in funding another, so would join in.
Once America is the lone holdout, the US taxpayer must either pay 100% of the costs of a fusion reactor (which would cost congressmen a lot of votes) or the US Government would have to give in.
Y'see, the important thing in politics is not who is right, or even who is richest, but rather who is the better gambler.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
When a known terrorist can openly fly into a country with no challenge at arrival, when funds, accounts, and property that belong to know terrorist groups are protected, when transactions that are illegal in other countries can be pursued openly, and when you sell countries materials forbidden by international treaty, I call that openly supporting terrorism.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Seriously, everything the French manage falls on it f'n face. Let the Japanese house it. That thing will do 150% of projected output. I think it has something to do with doing Tai-Chi before work every day.
We'll basically be like the Tlulaxu and Ixians, but without all the shape-shifting. All I need is money to buy the island and a tech base. Who's with me? I'll set us up a paypal account.
Good luck; the eco-nuts have a done a very good job scaring the public away from nuke-u-lar-anything. Perception == Reality.
I feel so much safer choking on coal, gas, and oil.
--
Power to the Peaceful
This thing is going to be sucking vast amounts of money for the forseeable future.
Remember they can do fusion, that isn't the problem. The problem is that they currently have no way to get more energy out of the fusion reactors than they have to put in to run the process.
5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 40 years more research? I'm betting somewhere between 20 and 40 years. In which case, who cares where it is located.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
My question would be, if it's supposed to be a worldwide project, how do they plan on pushing the power out from the West to the Eastern continents? I mean, really wouldn't it make more sense to build two reactors, one for Europe and nearby islands, and one for N+S America?
Budget wise, I'd imagine running a "safe" conduit between continents would present a rather significant cost just the same as building two reactors would?
Ummm...solar cells are something like 11% efficient at best.
That, and such large percentage of the sun's energy that reaches Earth to begin with is then wasted by filtering it through the atmosphere. Wouldn't it just be easier to build a Dyson's Sphere and be done with it?
Oh right - then all the plants would die because there's no sunlight. Like they would because there's no habitable groundspace if we cover the Earth with enough solar panels to get the kind of energy we would from one fusion reactor.
I say "boo" on you, Mr. C. Montgomery Burns. And that goes double for your sun-blocking plans!
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
How about MacDonald Rumsfeld... I'll be he can't resist those French Fries!
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
... is access to ITER while conducting experiments on neutron capture to produce fissionables, including weapons grade. France is likely to scream bloody murder sooner or later when the US does this (because they can; because they want to world to see them supporting non-weapons based nuclear work; because they want to be seen standing up to the World Bully; because it could encroach on their own high neutron producing commercial reactor business; etc.). While the people of Japan are equally as likely to find displeasure in what amounts to nuclear weapons research being conducted on their soil, the Japanese government and social structure will keep the noise level much lower than would occur in France. The US could get booted from France (it happened to NATO), but not from Japan.
d f). If the US were interested in energy production, rather than neutron production, they could have pursued thorium based fission reactors (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDe tail/assetid/25710/page/2). They're not as clean as fusion, but cleaner than heavy uranium and plutonium reactors. They're not externally neutron efficient, because they use their neutrons "breeding" thorium 232 into uranium 233, the actual fuel for the reaction. Thorium reactors can be built as neutron sources, but that's hanging a bag on the design; the more efficient designs don't need or incorporate that because they use the neutrons themselves.
Although fusion is relatively "clean", ITER is still a neutron heavy design (http://wsx.lanl.gov/Publications/neut-activate.p
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
There are quite a few of comments here about the thing going boom and spilling radioactive waste Chernobyl style. Is there anyone out there who can clarify what the safety issues with ITER are? What kind of radioactive materials are generated, if any? I know the fusion process generates lots of radiation (neutrons if I recall), but how much of that translates into radiative/activated materials that are long-lived and a danger to public safety?
Long live Schrodinger's cat...
So you were talking about the US.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Doesn't sound all that crappy to me. There are many (less glamorous) ways of generating energy which are less like burning money than fusion is.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I am so sick of the how the stories that get posted on Slashdot always have some wording to get this site going on a political bent. This story could have stimulated some interesting technical discussion - but because it had a tag line that mentioned the French / American thing, it will degrade into yet another Slashdot American / European / Asian / etc. bashing....
Please PLEASE keep it about "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters"
I welcome our new Giant International Fusion Reactor overlord!
SCO (noun.)- A Slimy Corporate Ogre. Often seeks free money.
The article asserts that the US is opposing the France option because of the Iraq war.
Just because some reporter makes this claim doesn't make it true. What is the source of this? There is nothing in the article to back it up. Maybe the claim comes from a source that is simply guessing as to the US's motives. Maybe the source is trying to divert attention from legitimate objections by claiming this is all politically motivated. We don't know.
Take this article with a grain of salt.
Why, the US isn't even considered for the reactor site?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Fusion is the one technology among a handful of others that will fundametally change the face of the world in the next 20-30 years and the U.S., the last "Superpower", is going to let that technology be developed on foreign soil.
ITER has only survived because of international funding. The US came late in the game.
If you come to the bar when the lights are just being turned on, you don't get to take anyone home.
Long live Schrodinger's cat...
No, I was talking about France. But if you had any question, let me repeat for the liberals that can only see it one way: I was talking about France.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
You have to go directly to the story page, where they couple the mp3 and ogg together...check this out,
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
What the hell does Iraq have to do with it? France have every right to hold their own opinions, does America think that just because they caught Saddam they now have the moral superiority of everyone? The site should be chosen on scientific suitability and somewhere where it wont be at risk of sabotage or control by any one government, it shouldnt be chosen based on the political views of some government in a totally unrealated matter. Its just childish like the Galileo demands.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Easy answer: because if anything goes wrong, the last thing they want is for a nuclear accident to happen on US soil.
At the same time, they're confident enough this won't happen such that they *don't* want the experimental reactor in France.
IIRC France is much more tectonically stable than Japan. In Japan you have the eartquake/tidal wave of the week club. While fusion power is safer (As far as we know, having never built a self-sustaining reactor) it'd be a bummer for an earthquake to destroy your multi-billion dollar reactor...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Basically fusion is not that hard. The problem in a fusion reactor is that the plasma cools off very quickly (seconds). If we let:
EO = energy outflow (cooling of plasma)
EF = energy produced by fusion reaction
EI = energy input (external heating)
then the following equations can be set up:
1) EO 0, the above equations 1 & 2 are hard to maintain. Why? Because hot plasma is cooled down by the reactor walls (+ other kinds of cooling).
Simply put, EO (cooling) is an area dependent function.
EF (energy from fusion) is a volume dependent function.
Thus, if you just build a large enough reactor, you can increase the EF/EO rating as much as you wish. However, a larger reactor costs more.
If we build a big reactor (r=20m) it would produce net energy output. It would NOT be commersially usable.
The ITER or Not-ITER discussion is about whether a large expensive test reactor would be worth its investment, or if the money rather should be used for base reasearch and computer simualtions.
There are two fundamentally different fusion reactors, the "tokamak", and the "stellarator" (IIRC). You want a magnetic field inside the reactor that keeps the plasma away from the walls. In the conseptually easier tokamak, that magnetic field is caused by letting a large (Mega Amp) current flow through the plasma. This current is produced in the plasma using the same concept as a AC voltage-transformer (the plasma is considered one of the spools). However, this means that the current in the "other" spool needs to increase linearly in order to maintain constant plasma current. In reality, this limits the time the reactor can operate to a few seconds (then you lose the plasma and need to restart).
A stellarator uses a very complex set of spools around the reactor to create constant magnetic field inside the reactor. "Very complex" means "not yet practically solved". Actually, its primarily a computational task.
Ok, I read both referenced articles...and even looked around for some others. Frankly the AP article and the others that I found were frankly just light on details of the delay and hyping up the Japan site.
While the BBC article was detailed on what they think is really going on (admittedly, it's probably what's going on, but I put that disclaimer in there just in case) with the delay.
And you know what? I think I have a little more faith in the BBC article than I do in the AP article...it's almost a certainty that it's a political issue and not just a 'which site is better' issue.
Grei
but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq
Could it possibly be because France tends to sell all of their nuclear capability to the highest bidder (i.e. Iraq!). Who do you think provided Iraq with the reactor that the Israelis bombed? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know...the US sold Iraq weapons too. How about a graph to show you the truth. The US sold Iraq 1% of its weapons and France sold them 13% of all of their weapons. Oh course, Russia was Iraq's #1 supplier. No wonder Russia and France were so adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq (I'm not saying the war was a Good Thing, BTW). Russia and France wanted to get paid by Iraq and they were afraid a war an ensuing chaos would cause them to have to forgive Iraq's debt. The war wasn't a good thing -- I hate it. However, we must realize that France's and Russia's opposition to it was not an act of kindness, either -- it was about money. The only possible good guy in all of this was Germany, although Iraq also owes German firms a LOT of money for work done there (mostly civil engineering, public works, etc).
1) EO < EF + EI
2) EO < EF
1) means that we have a net energy output (assuming 100% efficiency)
2) means that we have a "lit", self sustataining reactor
> but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq.
So, 'opposing the war in Iraq' is good for US? I thought that building reactors should be considered _bad_ for country (remember Chernobyl reactor catastrophe?).
More than half of world's countries were against Iraq war. Now let's try to punish them! Does G.B. has no brains or something? Apparently world will become somewhat tired of USA's behaviour and strike back.
-- grmbl woz heer
The AP story doesn't prominently mention the us objection to France because of their object to the war in Iraq. Conversly, the BBC story makes ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of what the "us objections" actually are. I have not been able to find any credible mention of who and what the actual objections are. Is this just a quote from someone with an axe to grind?
The technical aspects of this are much more interesting than the political ones.
Technology will always devolve to the least common denominator. Polictics will always devolve to the marginalized just bitching.
If at first you don't succeed, redefine 'success'
I'm ospposed to a French site not because they opposed the Iraq war, but beause my relatives (the French) are assholes.
Just my $0.02 worth.
I find that very interesting...
Can you be more specific? Which known terrorist are you talking about? Which known terrorist groups? What kind of transactions? What masterials that are banned by international treaty are you talking about?
You can't throw out those kind of accusations without being soecific....
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
> apparantly
Yeah, right.
-- grmbl woz heer
Hate to break it to you spanky, but the USA did exactly the same thing. By your logic, the US supports terrorism.
A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
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.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
You see calling someone liberal as insulting? I tend to agree, but I guess it depends on your point of view.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
oh--so in 40 years all they've learned is how to make cheezy powerpoint graphics?
of course the US doesnt want it in France, and of course it is because of the war. There's no surprise there. Canada is actually one of the front running countries for the location of the reactor but the Canadian government has decided it can't afford the necessary level of funding.
Dubya is so narrow minded that he can't separate any country from the topic of it's involvement with the unjust war.
But regardless, if a project could benefit the US, then the US will demand that they get it on their soil. ALL US trade policy, ALL US government action is based purely on screwing the world no matter how blatant and no matter how many treaties it breaks.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
My point exactly - the u.s. should have been leading this in the first place.
And that is what the BBC article says.
But Reuters and other sources write:
So, as usual, some journalists are wrong. How do we choose which to believe?
Maybe someone has a Canadian source? (their favors are not mentioned in these reports)
Then in ten years when the next-in-line of the Bush dynasty takes power, France (rogue nation that it is) is "discovered" to be using the reactor in an ongoing WOMD program that threatens the Safety and Liberty of the American People(tm).
In the ensuing chaos, the US "liberates" Canada in a move of characteristic logic.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/2 6/1656221&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=134
science classes only. No Law School, literature class will focus on scientific texts and technical writing, and history will be the history of science
:-)
Good luck, but I'm afraid your Island will be terribly boring. No litterature? No music either I guess?
But maybe you will enjoy the company of some Talibans looking for a new place...
Besides, "no history" sounds frightening. Of course, it seems we do NOT learn from history, after all, but we definitely shouldn't abandon any hope. Some day maybe we WILL learn from history.
But basically, the UK has approved the building of three offshore wind farms that will each provide the same power as a nuclear reactor (Sizewell B was the one named in terms of power output).
Wind's as unlimited a resource as deuterium, right? And a hell of a sight easier to draw power from.
Now, normally I'm all for fusion plants and cool high-tech stuff, but this just seems like another international money-sink. The fact the US is objecting to it being in France rather than Japan suggests A: petty, childish vendettas over the fact that France *dared* to defy the US over Iraq, and must now pay the price, or B: massive pork-barrel funding for American interests in the Japanese fusion industry, or C: both.
I don't even *like* the French, but really, fuck Bush. The sooner the world is rid of him and all his energy industry cronies fucking everybody else over for a dollar, the better. This is a man who is one step away from literally standing on a ledge pissing over people and telling them it's raining... and they're believing him! What's next? "That's not a human turd you just watched me shit out onto a plate, it's prime Texan beef! Now eat it up, yum! 'Cause if you don't, you're supporting TERRORISTS!" Christ...
You must think in Russian.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Can I say Google? This stuff has all been in news, even generic news like Yahoo. Known terrorists? How about Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, for example? France likes to pretend that they are not even terrorist groups, but groups "devoted to peace." Transactions would be payment for weapons and transferal of funds to buy them. Banned materials would be things like tritium and others that only have a real use in building nuclear weapons.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
According to the linked BBC article, everyone except the EU is backing Japan.
On the other hand, Reuters says that China and Russia are backing France.
Anybody know which is accurate?
Twenties Retirement
the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq.
U.S.A. - The most powerful country in the world.
Not only did they come late in the game, but they are entering at the minimum funding level that allows them to participate. This means Canada, Russia and South Korea is each putting at least as much into this as the U.S. is.
Canada actually had an excellent bid to be the hosting country, when rather unexpectedly Ottawa suddenly decided that they didn't want to play.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
For God sake - I hope the Fusion reactor will not come to Europe at all for security reasons!
For the politicial assault in the teaser of the article against France - here we go:
There is not much difference between 'Old Europe' and the US till the end 199x. And for am I was born in Eastern Germany behind the wall there were a lot of reason to thank the US for standing and thus save whole Europe (otherwise there had been no hold for the russian divisions at all).
But since the neoconservative Bush junta has taken over the power in the US all our picture of you has changed as dramatically as it could. Maybe we are driven apart before, but maybe all Europeans loved Clinton too much to see it. As where we stand now for me I can say: I see really two USA and they are as different as they could be. It's like you are a other land after the change from Clinton to Bush.
As where we now stand I would suggest you in the US to read 'After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order' by Emmanuel Todd - despite it will hurt you should get a lot of truth from it.
One of the main conclusions in this book is the change of the habbit of the US empire after the beginning of the 1990's from a good saving empire to a aggressive imperalistic empire.
Here are some main differences between the US and Old Europe as good as I get it together. Hopefully we do not see here a other clash of civilisation Huntington may have left in his book.
1)
We do not believe that your President has been legitimated in a fair democratic election at all.
(In no land in Europe this whould be able to happen - to have diffences in voting machines between 2-10% - and not count all votes via hand or arrange a new ellection.)
2)
Dead Penalty is not human and is showing a low state of civilisation.
3)
The agenda of Kyoto has to be ratified by the US as the biggest destroyer of our enviroment.
4)
The international curt in the Haag is the only authority for war crimes. Nobody here is seeing where you will have the right to think you would be out of this!
5)
You have no right to begin assault wars without legitimation of the UN security counsal - there will be no world order without the rule of law.
6)
There is also a big thinking of standing out of the law as empire. You have no right to deal like you do in Guantanamo! This is the tradition of Stalin and Hitler.
So we see a fall of democracity in the US swapped against nationalism.
Ambitious international projects like this (space station, anyone?) are almost always political hot potatoes, run ridiculously overbudget, and never achieve what they're originally meant to, ie orbitting giant space outpost of useful science, or a gateway to common supersonic air travel.
See also: The Concorde.
The only thing worse than one nation's beauracrats running huge projects that are mainly of engineering and technical expertise, is many nations' beauracrats doing it.
-
I would also add that France and Japan are both allies of the US. Given recent events, which is a "better" ally?
Does no one else remember Pearl Harbor? Or is it just short attention spans? Yeah, that was a long time ago, but I don't recally France ever actually attacking the US at all.
Frankly, I think this whole thing is stupid. What bad would come of a French fusion reactor? It's not like they're going to steal it and use it to power Iraq or something.
Just tell Bush that if the reactor explodes, this way it would kill French people instead of Japanese... maybe that would change his mind.
-"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
I don't consider 72% in favor of a "slim majority"...
Sorry, that was meant to be this URL. The sphere project was a project to, well, change the shape of a Tokamak's torus so that the eccentricity approached 1 (i.e., a sphere).
James F.
here it is 2003 and we still havent even reached ignition Sorry but ignition has been reached ad fusion sustained for minutes.
There plenty of policits to go around. The European Union wants the site to be in France (I wonder why?).
Meanwhile, "Canada, China, Russia, South Korea, the United States and Tokyo itself are reported to be favouring Japan".
It seems like its the EU against the world on this one.
You're right, history would probably have to be studied. Maybe we do this by not just studying a long string of events, but put them in a context: "The technicological advancements that came out of World War I included...", "Today we will study atomic weaponry and its effects on the world..." and so on?
But apparently it is possible to repeat the same lame joke on slashdot 1 000 000 times and still be moderated as insightful.
I urge slashdotters to read some european history, so they can realize how stupid these jokes are.
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.
Here is how I read this: France wants to be superpower itself, but Japan will play by the rules of US. So, if Japan gets the project US contractors can make more money, hence US opposes France. I don't think there are bitter feelings and/or US is trying to get back at France, they just want to make money, or rather they want the people who pay them and their campaigns to make money.
ato
When it comes to prestigous projects, somehow it is always France that gets the deal within the EU. This is so irritating and inacceptible.
Just because the french are the best lobbyists and diplomats and most ruthlessly serve solely their own interests, while demanding from others to serve the public interest, they get their way all the time.
I really hope this deal goes to Japan (ps. I'm dutch).
Excuse me but what statistics have you read? The war was probably about a 50/50 split in the US. Where did this slim minority BS come from?
Ok, so where are your stats.
Yes the many other Islamic countries were against the war. Islam has taken over 100 countries in the world now. If they feel threatened by anyone dealing with another Islamic country, then that's life.
There are a few interesting things I'd like to point out here. First, your use of 'taken over' in reference to Islam. How many countries has Christianity 'taken over'? Why do you think the country has been captured by a religion? And which hundred countries do you suppose this has happened to? I bet you can't name a dozen.
As far as France, Russia and Germany, yes they also didn't want the war. They were supplying Saddam and were owed billions. They still are. People forget that France was making the planes that Iraq used to gas its own people. That is why there was so much pressure against it. Those countries stood to lose money they were owed if the US invaded. You people are so easily swayed by propaganda instead of looking at facts that you really piss me off.
Ah, yes. It pisses me off too, which is why I'm replying to your bad information.
France, Russia, China, the USA, and Germany have all provided military equipment to Iraq. The USA has additionally outfitted Iran and several neighbours. The Russians, Germans, and French are owed money largely for infrastructure, electrical generators, sanitation equipment, and the like. But get this straight - no one is innocent in this, and the USA is certainly, far and away, the worst offender.
The helicopters - not planes - that Saddam used to gas the Kurds were from Bell Helicopter Textron and Hughes, which are both US companies. Any planes Saddam had have been grounded (and indeed, literally buried) since the No-Fly Zone was established after Gulf War 1.
So go check out that link and educate yourself, before the next time you go spouting off about things you know nothing about.
Fuck France
Oh, you don't want to get into that. France has much more effective curses to hurl back at you.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Why doesn't the US just build one for itself?
If they build an international fusion reactor, there will be endless squabbling about every little detail.
The US should just build one for itself, and leave the others to their own ideas. Why should our scientists, resources, and military, and production benefit other countries? It's a bad deal for us because we never seem to charge for our services.
What's the point of being a sovereign nation these days...
Do some research: the original war with Iraq over the invasion of Kuwait never ended.
The UN agreed to enter into what became a 10+ year-long cease-fire with Iraq. The sole purpose for this cease fire was to (a) allow Iraq to preserve some sense of independence after the defeat in the Gulf war, and (b) allow the UN to verify the absence of WMD programs in Iraq.
Instead of complying with UN resolutions, Saddam Hussein and his government spent over a decade blustering, posturing and doing their best to draw out what could have, and should have, been a very quick conclusion to the Gulf war.
US and coalition forces did not act illegally. They simply cartried out the original mandate they were given by the UN. If that's a crime, then so was the Gulf war, and any other action sanctioned and supported by the UN.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
I urge slashdotters to read some european history
If it doesn't involve nonsense like orcs, mithril armor and little twerps playing 'witch' games, then no Slashdotter will read it.
I suggest Keegan's "The First World War" to dispell any Merikin foolishness about how cowardly the French are in wars. The US showed up in the Great War well after the shit went down. Also, according to cca 1941 GOP policy, WWII was "Roosevelt's War." Godless unpatriotic queers!
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Sorry but ignition has been reached ad fusion sustained for minutes.
I don't think so. If you clicked on the link you would see that ignition in this context refers to the point at which the energy derived from the fusion reactions is enough to maintain the necessary plasma temperature to continue the reaction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but current reactors haven't even reached a breakeven. The energy output from the fusion reactions is less than the energy needed to heat the plasma.
Oh really ? These productivity numbers are normally expressed in U.S. dollars and as far as I know that currency has been falling continuously in the past couple of months vis-a-vis (sorry for the French..) other currencies like the Yen, Euro, Pound Sterling and yes, even the Argentine Peso. So, who is actually further and further into the rear view mirrors ?
I wonder what you smoked today. Must be pretty cool stuff.
Steam is not contaminaton.
The "Steam" you see coming out of the top of a nuklear power plant's cooling tower is only a few degrees warmer that the air around it, and a lot more moist. That "Steam" is a man-made CLOUD. Not a cloud full of acid rain either. Its some of the cleanest air and water you can find in the US.
The cloud probobly reflects more heat energy than it gives to the environment. Since nuke plants cant dump heat into water (like coal plants can) by law, the heat would go into the sky. But not much, just enought to take steam and make it water again so that the process can re-boil the water.
Any plant that burns something releases more heat per KWH than a nuke plant of similar size. No contest.
md5sum
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
Is that cold fusion voodoo patented, yet?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
I thought about doing that. How many more classes, in your situation, are needed to get the minor or second major? I've taken a few other geo classes myself. The only thing holding me back is that I can graduate next semester if I just stick with my original plan,
Well, I'm on the 5 year plan (with about 2.5 years left) myself, and I am changing schools next fall. (to the University of Oregon)... I think for the minor it's 25-30 credits, about 15-20 upper division. I have the lower division stuff done (Geology 201, 202, 203).
and I'm getting married in October so don't want to be studying during the honeymoon. Decisions, decisions.
Congratulations. I got married last August, it's great!
You and I are almost in the exact same boat here.
Oh, one other question: my major is CS; do there seem to be lots of spots for CS guys in the geology world? I'd imagine there's plenty of simulation/modelling/imaging work to do, but I don't know for sure. What're your thoughts?
My major is also CS... with the recent story about there being 250,000 less jobs in programming/software engineering over the next 12 years, the double-major is looking more attractive.
My CS teachers at the CC where I started said to take Geology as a major and minor in CS... but I always wanted to major in CS since high school. There is also an accelerated MSCS degree at the UofO.
I really want to do something where I can be lazy, like be a unix sysadmin somewhere... but there is something attractive about manipulating GIS data, doing simulations of various things geological, and things like that. The UofO apparently has some research that involves CS majors working with Geology majors.
According to the Geology profs, geologists with CS background are highly desirable.
[Side note to the moderator(s) who moderated the parent post ontopic... almost all posts 4 levels deep reflect the natural flow of conversation, and are, as such, ON TOPIC. Concentrating your mod points on top-level offtopic posts would be more efficient and less of an assault on intellectual discussion.]
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
"but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq."
WTF... Are they entirely brain dead? What the fuck does this have to do with the war? Please tell me this isn't true.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The Z-machine is no more modern than 10 years more modern than the tokamak and it sure as hell isn't efficient (in terms of fusion production) by any means
... )
IMHO, it is not the machines' efficiencies which should be compared
at this stage, but the (projected) upward-scaling of the technologies.
Indeed, the Z-machine is currently not very efficient, but
the indirect-drive ICF approach is, AFAIK, quite promising.
(Of course, my biased opinion, as one considering a PHD in plasma,
is that the world should try both in parallel and see what works
Working for necessity's mother.
...politics gets in the way of science and the common good of the planet.
Humanity can be so very, very stupid.
Sorry but you must be on a different planet with more advanced fusion technology than ours. Ignition has NEVER been achieved, certainly not for minutes. The definition of ignition is a plasma undergoing fusion at a rate sufficient that the alpha particles alone are enough to heat and continually sustain the reaction. You are confusing this with the sate of breakeven, where more energy is given out by the fusion reaction than is put in, and even then stable modes are only sustained for a few seconds at most.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
"No, I was talking about France. But if you had any question, let me repeat for the liberals that can only see it one way: I was talking about France."
Look at your own country for christ sake...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Wasnt this supposed to have a good chance of creating an unstable black hole and causing the end of our known universe?
Are we still worried about that or have we moved on yet? I forget.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
Well we dropped out of the chance to have it (our Liberal Party - uh, translation for Yanks, that's more or less 'centrist' in Canada - decided that).
However I might point out that we opposed the War in Iraq as well. So it would likely be blocked, the same as France, if that is indeed what is happening.
(We sent troops and ships to Afghanistan which are still there but I bet that doesn't count.)
Besides, you set up a fusion reactor in Canada, you know what'll happen? C'mon, you must have heard about.. you know, how we are up here. Think an international consortium is going to let us peacenik dope-smoking legally-married-lesbians who-are-also-legally-topless run that thing?
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
How all the people I've ever come across that think the French people aren't on the level have never been to France. I mean, it's one thing to say "Well, All the French people I've met have been arrogant pricks, but I've never been to France," but quite another to generalize a country based on the actions of a: it's leaders or b: the damn few transplants you've seen in your hometown/area. I apologize to all the armchair bigots for going to France a few years ago, but When I asked for directions to, say La Defense (pardon the spelling if it's wrong) or the Champs-Elysees, or the palace of Versailles, (heck, even the nearest place to eat) I was given them, and given them very cordially and they even asked for my map and traced out the route. Shame I can't get the same service here in America. I live in Florida and there are a lot of New Yorkers in my area. All the ones I've come across have been arrogant pricks, but last time I visited NYC, even the Brooklynites were happy to tell me which lines went back to my hotel (Manhattan) and even recommended ones for cleanliness/safety/speed. I recommend actually visiting before making your umbrella statements about a given society.
Now watch this drive.
It really bothers me that people wrap themselves in a flag and refer to Kyoto and how CO2 is destroying the environment when they know DICK ALL about it and have not even done the most basic research.
If you read chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) The Scientific Basis you will find that water vapour is typically ignored in most models. Yet it is ove 100 times more significant than CO2 is.
I quote: These aspects have been explored only to a limited extent in climate models. No studies deal with true intensity of rainfall... ...Accordingly, it is important that much more attention should be devoted to precipitation rates and frequency, and the physical processes which govern these quantities.
In fact a change of about 1% (or less) in average water vapour on the planet will have more impact on global warming than all the CO2 put together. Meanwhile we have massive irrigation projects and aquifer mining projects going on all over the planet - and these UNDOUBTABLY have had a significant impact on increasing atmospheric H2O.
One of the arguments against H2O's impact is the idea that H2O is short lived in the atmosphere. That may well be the case but at the same time the introduction of additional H2O is very constant.
So this is like saying my humidifier won't work because its effect is short lived. That may be true but I can refill it often and personal experiance tells me it actually does work.
We have similar bad science going on in the nuclear industry. ITER is decades away. In the mean time mankind is going to have to re-vitalize Nuclear Energy. So we hear disinformation all over the place about how fusion will be so safe and fission is dirty.
Fusion is a neutron source and it is these neutrons we are looking for to burn Uranium and Plutonium. Clearly the ITER core will be irradiated and clearly it will create high level wastes. But the most important fact is that we cannot count on it being available any time soon.
We will need a new energy source about as fast as we can bloody well build it and that is even if we fast track it. North American Gas prices are at a high and Oil is also high; meanwhile it was only a few short months ago the USA petroleum stocks were reported at a 27 year low.
The BP Statistical Review of World Energy shows North American gas production peaked in 2001 and that the North Sea feilds peaked in 1999. In fact it shows Saudi Arabian output is down since 2001 as well - but this might not be supply side. Long before new power plants are built there will likely be very serious blackouts and industrial shutdowns. The North AMerican Nitrogen fertilizer industry is the first of many examples to follow.
So lets start doing some real research and start checking facts instead of parotting the disinformation and bad science that is constantly spewed around in the media.
I only have one problem with building this reactor in France.
It has got to be the 1st or 2nd most militarily defeated territory
in modern Europe. Probably the 4th or 5th in the world.
Japan is an island nation, and in contemporary terms at least,
much more faithful to the treaties it pledges itself to uphold.
-- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
Can you see trough how many hoops you have to jump to explain this?
But no, the war was illegal. The "original mandate" ended a long time ago and the UN refused to create a new one.
Also, before the invasion all the arms inspectors were unanimous that they were able to do their job and were not finding any significant violations of un resolutions. It turns out they were probably right, since the US-UK coalition have not been able to find any either. Of course even if there were violations the UN would have to authorize any military intervention.
So, yes the war was illegal.
despite the myth that these projects seem to continuate, fussion can be accomplished easy with a very simple installation.
this guy, for example made 4 'fusors' that created plasma, and even achieved proton counts at levels indicative of fusion (the link has some pretty pictures of his fusion experiments)
What projects such as this one are really trying to demonstrate is not how to create fusion for a long time, but how to have fusion in a way that produces more energy that it takes to make it, which has eluded scientists so far.
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.
...about how well the European social democracies are working with their cradle to grave social welfare state. That is one big reason they are starting in with the demonizing of France. Pretty soon they will find reasons to be demonizing Denmark, Netherlands, et al.
I have already seen propaganda posing as news that denigrates the Canadian universal healthcare system.
The rich investors that control the US media and govt want to keep their billionaires for themselves. It is really the same pattern repeating ltself from decades ago when they demonized and terrorized countries that attempted socialism.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
But i am probably a bit eurocentric.r s-hybrides.html).
I think the french spot is good because it is in europe with some quite strong economies that has been affected as badly by the US recession.
It is also quite close(4:00 hours by tgv ) to the high energy physics research center of CERN(http://www.cern.ch) and the nano tech in Grenoble(the reactor group http://isnwww.in2p3.fr/reacteurs-hybrides/reacteu
Why put endless money into the holy grail of energy? We have solar, wind and earth energy right at our feet. Ready to be used at a fraction of the money it costs of getting nuclear power.
The only reason nuclear power is even remotley usable is that half the cost is put onto future generations such as waste storage and the huge loans that built the plants.
And can somebody please shut that fuckfuckingmotherfucking Bush idiot up before he starts WW3 in the name of god or something as stupid? Before the iraq war he had the whole damn world behind him and in some miracular way he has succeded in making the terrorists look pretty nice in comparison. The Bush administration is the biggest fucking threat to mankind since Hitler.
HTTP/1.1 400
Are you by chance American? Because nothing you say has anything to do with what I said.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
"Giant International Fusion Reactor"? So it generates power from the energy produced by forcing nations together? Maybe it's a good thing they can't agree then. Nations in an excitied state should produce more energy when fused together, right?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
-- Will program for bandwidth
Really? Care to provide any evidence for that? Searching on Google, I found no articles among the top 20 that suggested any linkage between the decision for Spain to drop out and Spain's support of the Iraq war. Several of them said things like:
In fact, even if Spain's position on Iraq played a role, European diplomats would be less likely to do something as foolish as publicly stating it as a reason.
If you don't like the injection of politics into matters of science, I'm sure you'll rebuke the EU for what they did to Spain.
Here, I'll state it: any nation that determines the location of an unrelated scientific research facility based on whether a war they started was supported by other nations is behaving in a childish manner. Furthermore, if the diplomats and research establishment of that nation publicly give lack of support for the war as the reason for their decision on the location of the research facility, those diplomats are incompetent.
I don't see exactly how the EU could have done what the US did, given that the EU has not started any wars recently, but if they have and if they make such a foolish decision, then, yes, I fully condemn their actions.
Determine the worst that could happen if things go wrong, and put it in the country that could best handle that sort of disaster, either through quick and effective containment or simple isolation in the boonies- whichever will keep the people safest until it can be fully contained.
Forcing someone *not* to wear a cross is identical to forcing someone *to* wear a cross. Its religious oppression either way you look at it.
Very well said. I've always felt that way, but that's a nice, simple, defensable way to say it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The UK, dammit WE supplied weapons to Iraq too you know!
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Let's see... One country helped the US win its independence from Britain. The other attacked us in the most dastardly fashion at Pearl Harbor. Which one should we support?
Would one of the people on this thread who opposed the war come out and say that "If we had not invaded iraq would be better off ten years from now with saddam still in charge and the sanctions in place"? If you can make that assertion with a straight face i will stop bathing, start listening to phish and be high 24/7 like the rest of the pansies who don't understand politics or international relations.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
The French have a reputation of being as petty, pissy and obnoixious as the U.S. That's probably part of the source of the animosity between the two cultures. We're too much alike and won't admit it.
As an American, I'd rather see the reactor built in Japan. There's a laundry list of reasons (the French seem to handle internation opinion & criticism about as well as we do), but if it makes you Euro's feel warm, fuzzy, and supieror, then fine;
"I don't want them thar frechies building nuthin' cause they didn't support the war. Damn Frogs. God Bless America! Power of Pride! Never Forget!"
Have I reinforced the stereotypes enough? Or should I post a link to pictures of my pickup truck?
The U.S. could get the whole planet laid, and they'd still complain. If we supported the French Project we'd be unjustly shutting out Japan of an economic opportunity.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
The choice on where to build the reactor currently stands between Japan and France [,,,]
They should build it in Greenland, Iceland, or Siberia. Then they could achieve cold fusion.
B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Both Japan and France have a ton of cities... shouldn't the reactor be in some really remote location, like either a desert, or up in Alaska? The world's biggest fusion reactor has the potential to cause the world's biggest reactor disaster... so it should probably be far away from everything.
Uh, if you know anything about fusion reactors, you'd know that they are incapable of having a meltdown like some types of fission reactores.
Of course, let's not all forget that it will still only be a fraction of the size of THE SUN, which is already a working fusion reactor, spewing a virtually infinite amount of energy at us all the time. We should just make giant solar cells everywhere, and be done with it.
Do you know how expensive solar panels are? The best method for producing power now is good old fission. There are new reactor designs that are meltdown proof, cheap, and efficient.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
... In the beautiful south of France or in the Japanese countryside 200km from anywhere?
The sum total of US military sales to Iraq over the last 30 years was $150,000. That's one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. China, Russia, France, and South Africa far surpassed the US in military sales to Iraq.
Germany and France were the primary suppliers of Iraq's WMD program, not the United States.
The only country to have used helicopters to spray chemical weapons so far has been Iraq. The helicopters in question that Bell sold to Iraq were civilian model helicopters. While they could easily be outfitted with weapons, there were far more effective gunship platforms available (ie, Russian ones) for a cheaper price. And Iraq fitting them with chemical weapons was probably not an anticipated result.
People who get pissed over that might as well get pissed at Toyota for selling their trucks to the Taliban.
Compare that with German assistance in pointing out how a pesticide factory could be switched over to chemical weapons relatively easy.
...show backbone when we say, "Uh.. Ok, but then don't come back with your hand out later." Which is of course what they've done.
Let's not forget our good friends the French who, AGAINST WORLD OPINION decided to do a bit of above ground nuclear testing off of New Zealand back in '95-'96. They essentially told everyone else to fuck off and mind their own business when they did what they pleased. In the process, they ended up spewing even more radioactive waste across the planet. Yes, what peace lovers the French are, yes?
Thanks to that thoughtless move, Pakistan and India thought the time was ripe, after all, if one of the primary signatories of the test ban treaty can break it, why shouldn't they?
So let's cut the hypocrisy here. It wasn't even that France decided that THEY didn't want to go to Iraq. That would have been acceptable to the U.S. No, they went one step further, going around the world and trying and convince OTHER nations to bury the U.S. in the U.N. as well. All for their oil contracts in Iraq. That's not simplistic neutrality - that's fucking HOSTILITY!
France pissed the U.S. off - perfectly within their rights - but they shouldn't reasonably expect everything to be business as usual afterwards.
And as to minimizing our contributions in WWII, I have to just say, Fuck You. There are members on my Dad's side I never got to meet because of that war. You might be confusing WWI with WWII - which is understandable - both wars were created first in Europe and our contributions were not as great in WWI (not to minimize our role there either).
As with Bosnia, the U.S. was there to clean up the mess in Europe's own backyard.
Go ahead, mod me down for being an American about this, but I think many forget the price of blood and sacrifice and put it all down to numbers.
At least I'm not being an Anonymous pussy in my reply. My karma and your self respect is at your mercy...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Wow... you REALLY don't understand economics do you?
... build the fusion reactor in Iraq.
That way everyone will have an interest in seeing Iraq rebuilt and made safe and Iraq will also be able to better repay its debts...As apparently its oil is not enough.....
It's nice to see that the decision is being made on a solely technical basis, lord knows we wouldn't want this to turn into a political shitfight.
yea...I would oppose building it in france....hell...when was the last time anyone used a french car or electronic device?
besides, borrowing from The Simpsons, Robin Williams, and Jay Leno, if terrorists attacked, they'd surrender even before we can say "sh*t"
and the ol' saying, payback is a b*tch
Ok Several times in the article it was said the us opposed France on political grounds but nowhere did it site a US (or any other source) to back that as the reason the US is picking Japan. If you are going to say the US is opposing this because of Iraq back it up
"Germany and France were the primary suppliers of Iraq's WMD program, not the United States." Yeah , Right.
One can argue that the US did put Saddam Hussein in place anyway, so let us only see at the source of all our problem and who put dictator in place in the last 20 years in soith america, Africa and east. Frankly I do not think you wouldlike the blame game that much.The reason is simple the US as having more power militaristcaly simply had its hands in more dirty things. It is simply a Question of financial. I do not think the other country are more innocent and they would probably have done the same with the same money at disposition. Just do not start the blame game now because you aren't in position for that.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Casualties in World War II
/Wounded
France - ? / 201,568 / 400,000
Germany 20,000,000 /3,250,0004 /7,250,000
U.S.S.R. - ?/6,115,0004 /14,012,000
United Kingdom 5,896,000 /357,1164 /369,267
United States 16,112,566 /291,557 /670,846
Country Men in war Battle/ deaths
So the French army fighted only a few months (mainly Spring 1940) but had 2/3 of the whole casualties of the US for the whole war (Pacific included).
The myth of French blind surrendering was a legend born from at end of the disaster, when fron lines collapsed, Germans were everywhere and everything was lost, and from the following pro-Germans government of Petain, who said that the causes of the disaster were lazyness and a lack of will.
The causes of the defeat (the worst in our history) are more in the way the Germans organized their army than everything else.
quoted from christophe (slashdot UID 36267) Christophe http://www.courtois.cc/
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'm French, and I'm married to an American citizen (kids on the way.. twins!). We live in France, purely because at the moment, we have a much better financial situation either, than we would over there in the US, but we may move across the atlantic. I have found the US to be very welcoming (once you're past the people at customs!), and my wife has no problem whatsoever here for being an American. (besides getting whistled at, and talked to, by guys!)
... I call it defending your interests, fair enough.
I am not a fanatic of Chirac, neither is my wife a fanatic of George W. Our respective parents are a bit more, since they had a longer period of time to build their beliefs.
However, we are saddened to see the mounting misunderstanding between the two countries that we like.
I would dare to summarize the differences as:
1) France
- Scared of religious influence. We experienced hundreds of years of total Catholic domination of the country, which was so uncontested that it blocked any scientific or societal progress. You would never see a government leader in church, on TV !
- Scared of change. French are notorious for it, and it's a stereotype that's actually true! We are a country with an overwhelmingly uniform population, and anything new (Muslim religion becoming prominent, for example) is Bad.
- Trying to maintain a world position by using the European union to lessen US influence. (call it defending our interests).
2) US
- Religious influence and lobbying of sorts (religious, business, etc.) is business as usual. Actually, a government leader wins brownie points by appearing religious. It's even on your money notes.
- Used to a very widely different population ('melting pot'), due to your country history.
- Trying to maintain world dominance by isolating and lessening the influence of other world powers, in general by identifying or inventing an enemy such as russia, terrorism, france,
In the past, such cultural differences have been worked around, but it seems that lately, respective leaders are using them to stigmatize each other as political enemies, and this is really counter-productive for both countries. The US is the biggest investor in France, and (I think, from memory) the other way around.
There is a long history of helping each other. Whatever people say of US motives, that intervention was critical in WWII. I don't care that the USA wouldn't have won the war alone, I care that history would have been different without the US, most probably. France financed and greatly helped the US independence, also due to their own motives (lessening the power of the British seeming like a good one), but what country ever sends their soldier for the goodness of their heart, when they have to answer to their own opinion?
I hope both countries move on. I'm confident that things will improve after both administrations (Chirac and W.) have been replaced.
American economocs: "As long as the total stuff you make exceeds more than everybody else, it doesn't matter that your debts are astronomical."
The Russians did in fact fight the Japanese. The battle-hardened Red Army launched an attack on Japanese forces in Manchuria in early August 1945 and went through them like a hot knife. A month later they took and occupied the Sakhalin Islands which were, like Okinawa, Japanese national territory. It was a major reason for the Japanese surrender in September.
but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq.
Oh, please. Blocking an unrelated project because someone doesn't want to play your silly games with you? That's so childish.
Please elect a grown-up this year.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Rumsfeld, Bush Sr., and their acquaintenaces had formulated a plan to strike hard against Iraq, but never got to carry it out as Clinton got elected. It represented the work of a lot of important people, but it got shelved, which deflated a lot of rather large egos. Once Bush Jr. got back in power, they waited for just the right moment (after 9/11) to put it back into motion.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
I still say that ignition has been reached and sustained for several minutes. Of course you're producing (gamma radiation+neutrons)-> heat and heat is termodinamically not very efficient to be converted in electricity.
So, what has not yet been reached is the energetic breakeven point inclusive of all the energy losses.
I foresee another ISS (International Space Station) style boondoggle. How about instead setting up some prizes? Eg, a billion USD to the first group that creates a working fusion plant that is viable (say they run it for a month or so and it generates more power than it sucks up), half a billion USD to second place, etc.
I mean, besides that whole concept of "liberty" and stuff... oh, and they:
*aided us with ships and arms in our most important time in removing King George from the colonies
*provided money for the expansion of our navy to defend our trade to the Barbary Coast
*became our number one trade partner when no king's nation was buying American goods
*admired and respected us that they acted in same manner to start a revolution for their people
*loved us so much that they gave us the Statue of Liberty, and we loved them so much all of our fashions and opinions came from France
*is our oldest national friend, and the first place that really recognized our sovereignity
opened our cultural gates to Europe when we needed help
*has been our staunch ally on the security council, believed with us that the spread of communism in Vietnam was so important that they got involved first, almost religiously backed our initiatives until we freaked out and launched a war unprovoked
*generally put up with our crap, and we them, for generations, out of FRIENDSHIP
*And most importantly, they would LISTEN TO US AND WE THEM WHEN WE DISAGREED
Besides that, what has France ever done for us. And by saying "done for us" I mean the LAST TWENTY MINUTES. After all, America is not good on remembering the truth about France and America, who were, at one time, the only two democracies backed into a corner in the world, struggling for the freedoms of their citizens.
NEVER FORGET THAT.
Take that you anti-France bastards. We're old friends, it is about time you honored the contract, and listened to your friends, you petulant children.
By the way, we had larger influences in Iraq than you think. Read a little.
Well, eventually we'll just end up printing more money... the way prices are going, a little inflation couldn't hurt.
Nuclear energy is not safeable to handle by human beings at all! This is cause we make always errors and especially scientists can not really modelling the reality. There is always an unclear area scientiest are unable to handle in the current models and therefor denied in the usual models and theories. Thus we saw Tschernobyl here in Europe or other incidents all over. I should have happen not in 60000000 years statistically following the scientific models. Don't tell me there were some small errors by human beings - engineers always tell us when something fails! This are errors of the system not included in your models - with other words they are systematically faults of our thinking about nature. A more second thing is our absolutaly neither means in dealing with nuclear incidents all over the world. Do you have any means to clean a civilised area contamined with isotops for the nex 30000 years? Do you have any imaging about what cost this will be for the humans and what a whast of human work of centuries?
Well, I think I do and you dont. Productivity is output, measured in some monetary value, produced in a certain amount of time. So when a currency drops, the output that is produced in a certain country is worth less to people in other countries. Actually, productivity measured in output per hour is higher in countries such as France and Switzerland than in the US. But apparently you are an uneducated American bigot and wouldnt believe such a fact (www.ilo.org).
The higher productivity per hour measure is in countries with double-digit (or at least higher than the US) unemployment. If Bill Gates was the only employed person in the US, our productivity would be through the roof, you know what I mean?
I would argue that isn't b/c France opposed the war w/Iraq, but b/c the French openly supply middle eastern countries with nuclear knowhow/supplies/etc.
I would also agree that they shouldn't get the new reactor. First, b/c they run on something like 80% nuclear power already (hence have enough), and b/c of the aforementioned ties to possible threats to both US and international countries posed by nuclear arms so close to fundamentalist whackjobs.
-bZj
.sig
After watching fusion research go for 30 years without ever getting one inch closer to being a viable source of energy, I can't believe they're going to take this waste of money to the international level to waste another 30 years. We ALREADY have a fusion reactor 93 million miles up with a 4 billion+ year fuel supply, that already puts out more energy than the whole solar system can receive or use.
Funny... "U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq"
I am American and I oppose the war in Iraq, also everyone I talk to is opposed too. But then again I am in Southern California and we are a little different then those backwater hicks that elected our president. I no noone who voted for Bush.
As much as I like Slashdot this place is definitely ultra liberal and has an agenda to go with that...
Is this the same Slashdot that modded you up +4 Insightful?
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
In this case, some clueless old wrestler told France how they should vote in the UN, or else. France replied with their usual hand gestures to such a threat, and proceeded to take it personally. All this silly freedom fries bullshit is to satisfy the ego of a washed up old man, who had an enormous chip on his shoulder after Saddam didn't do what he was told and scuttled Rumsfeld's career the first time around. If it wasn't for September 11 he would have gone long ago, and if it was someone without a personal grudge against Saddam we would probably have been looking for Bin Laden for the last few years.
This is yet another example of the triumph of advertising agencies over science, you know the sort - Nuclear power is clean and green enough to brush your teeth with it - Duck and Cover!
After several billion (insert currency of choice) have been spent, some nut will finally get a Farnsworth fusor running with a fuel feed.
.... has absolutely nothing to do with the stated US reasoning.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Canada, Russia and China may be in favour of Japan for myriads of other reasons.
That does not make the US stated reasoning any less childish.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
When is the US expelling France from NATO?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... to dictate who should be depossed or who should be governing in any given country?
Apart from "the brutest and mightiest country in world" I find no other justification.
France has been an ally of the US, including the first Gulf War, but international opposition , including US NAFTA partners, Canada an Mexico, was widespread given the flimsy excuse used for the war (the WMDs fiasco).
The US goverment has managed to convince the US populace that this was in reality about the US removing a dictator out of the goodness of their allAmerican hearts, and when that began to go all nasty, it became all of the sudden part of the hazzy, unwinnable, "war on terror".
How some people still see France so negatively when your closest economic allies (China, Mexico, Canada) are telling you you are full of shit is beyond me.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... politics do not matter, ever.
Back to my Ultima 2 game.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And what about Canada? Japan? China?
...
And even "smaller" countries like Mexico (9th economy in the world btw)?
Stop looking for excuses, there is a worldwide consensus tha the war was unnecessary, stop nitpicking.
Practically every country but the US and the UK were against the war, and just before the conflict only in the US the population was in favour of it. After the conflict only US and UK can come forward with pools showing any kind of popular approval
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... and today';s Japan are not the same country by any stretch of the imagination. History changes nations.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Lack of research in one area does not mean widespread research in anothere is invalid.
C02 must be contained, but certainly excessive H2O emissions should be studied, specially in view that the hydrogen fuell cells are being hailed by many as the environment saviors.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is historic perspective!
You should now work out how the Aztec Empire benefitted or otherwise the US (500+ years ago) or perhaps pass judgement in the Roman Empire or pharaonic Egypt in the building of the glorious US of A.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is what.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... that tribalism is well and alive in the US of A.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I say put it there not for any France sucks reasons but because invariably (is that right) the Japs make things work faster and better.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
You missed my point. The article does not cite any particular administration official as being the source, nor does it state what the particular objection is. "citing its opposition to the Iraq invasion" is particularly vague, and does not help me understand the why of the matter. It seems to me that the bbc article is simple using a hot topic to garner interest in an otherwise uninteresting, uninformative article.
If at first you don't succeed, redefine 'success'
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/12/19/wtc.pla n/
Doesn't the reactor have to be replaced every 20 years or so because the bombardment degrades the protective casing? So, it's not a one-time radioactive cost, but could happen several times during the life of a power plant.
I'm just trying to get a handle on how much fuel waste a fission reactor produces, compared to how much reactor waste a fusion reactor produces. I have no idea, really.
OMG... What a fscking trollfest. C'mon guys - the article's about fusion. Fusion. The future. Not the fscking past. Not about France, Iraq or whatever. What about some basic decency? Ahh, and staying on topic??? Calm down, everbody!
This comment does not exist.
Where does it stop? It it really necessary for EVERY country in the world to continue to 'test' these things?
Give me a break. We all know they work - big whoop. Delivery and control systems are the real issues. Building a bigger bomb only means a deeper crater at this point.
The next time France wants to test their bomb, why not do it someplace in France? The U.S. certainly did a great deal of testing on it's own shores.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Is no one going to talk about that or are we just going to be whining about the french all day?
I have to correct myself, I found that we were referring to two different meanings of "Ignition", your being the correct one.
Ignition has not been reached tough it is not a prerequisite for useful power production (ITER will hopefully reach the breakeven point even if not reaching ignition).
I hope you're not the same AC I answered few minutes ago... eventullay you're discovering the difference between winners and loosers (you).
Yes, you're right.
It's really appaling that a US diplomat (or a diplomat from any other country) could "[cite French] opposition to the Iraq invasion". Yes, we all know about corruption and bias, but I though at least we were thinking this is nothing to be proud about. Nowdays, apparently, you don't even need an appearance of honest and objective decision...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.