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.

17 of 967 comments (clear)

  1. Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    is eating at French restaurants in DC these days.

    Time to move on.

    1. Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and after all the blood we poored for them in WWII.

      Yeah, after somebody else started shooting at you first... Unlike other countries, such as most of the commonwealth countries.

      I mean sure, Nazi Germany probably would have one if the US hadn't gotten involved, but stop acting like the allies one JUST because of the US. The US sluffed off and stayed out of most of the war, and it's contributions were no where NEAR as overwhelming as you seem to be implying. The US didn't - and COULDN'T have - won WWII on their own.

      And frankly, I think the French leaders show some backbone in telling the US "We don't agree, now go away" on ANY issue.

    2. Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yes, because french restraunts in the US are not actually owned and run by french nor do they employ french..

      So basically the US constitution applies equally to everybody. Inalienable rights, as long as your ancestors were not from France? At one point the US stood for freedom and equality. Quite a shame that it's degraded to this. A person from France can move to the US, attain citizenship, yet because of their name, accent, or history they will be boycotted? I have no problem with you or anyone shunning somebody based on their beliefs or actions. But if you shun someone based on their heredity, that makes you a bigot. Either treat people equally or move to another country where they don't have such a constitution.

      Or are you so deluded as to believe that a person's cultural background always implies that they mimic the opinions of that culture's leaders?

    3. Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      England, Canada, Australia all joined the war after Germany had attacked 2 countries. The US waited and waited and didn't join the war until they were eventually attacked. Why? Because the majority of the US public was opposed to the war.

      In the case of Iraq, a slim majority of the American populace was in favour of the war. In many other countries, public opinion was almost unanimously against the war, and yet the US berates them for not supporting it.

      -a

    4. Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  2. waiting for Godot... by endoboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...."

    1. Re:waiting for Godot... by Mister+Attack · · Score: 5, Informative

      Interesting thoughts you have there...

      Building a stable, sustained, controllable fusion reaction is relatively easy. That isn't, and never has been, the problem. You contain the plasma in a magnetic field that has a single half-twist in it.

      Building a stable, sustained, controllable fusion reaction is _incredibly_ difficult. Yes, plasma can be contained by a toroidal magnetic field, FSVO "contained." A nice, cold plasma, at a few tens of thousands of degrees? No problem. At higher temperatures, though, collisions knock lots and lots of ions and electrons off-axis and into the walls of the reactor. This is a major mode of energy loss in magnetic confinement fusion experiments. As you mentioned, instabilities are also a tremendous problem, and that problem has not been solved.

      Once you ignite your super-cold plasma, the nuclei are already much closer together, and can't move apart (density too high, plus magnetic field containing the plasma). Your ideal starting material would be a Bose-Einstein Condensate. You cannot get a better density than that, using just conventional means.

      This is why you'd need the stupendous magnetic fields. What I'm suggesting is not fusion of a low-density gas, but fusion of a pseudo-liquid or pseudo-solid. To retain that kind of density, when the material is undergoing fusion, would require fields vastly greater than those currently used in fusion research.


      As far as Bose-Einstein Condensates go, BEC's occur at temperatures in the nanokelvin range -- that's a full, what, 12 or 13 orders of magnitude too low in thermal energy to overcome the Coulomb potential keeping the nuclei apart. BEC's are notoriously tricky to create; you need to go through several cooling stages involving precisely tuned ultrastable lasers, and at the end of all that work, you get a ball of maybe a few billion atoms. It is simply not feasible to produce BEC's at any larger scale, nor to keep them condensed at fusion temperatures.

      And as stupendous magnetic fields go, well, the best anyone can do right now is a sustained field of about 25 Tesla. I don't know offhand what fields they use in Tokamak experiments, but I'm betting it's no more than 10 Tesla, nor less than 1. Either way, there is no way we know of to make steady-state magnetic fields "many orders of magnitude stronger."

      It's late now, and I'm getting tired, but suffice it to say that there's a lot more to be done than just making everything bigger. The energy scales are enormous, nobody really knows how to keep a plasma hot and contained, and it's going to take a lot more R&D before we can get usable energy out of fusion.

  3. Japan is the obvious choice! by Kymermosst · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Japan is the obvious choice! by WTFmonkey · · Score: 5, Informative
      Interesting point. Although intraplate quakes are much more powerful (and much rarer) than your typical subduction quakes. They tend to originate much deeper and pack a tremendous amount of power. Look at the Lisbon quake that basically caused the collapse of the Portugese Empire. So Montana might not be as tectonically safe as some would think.

      Sorry, I took a Natural Disasters class last semester and it was awesome. You can get back to your topic now.

  4. This is relying on the obsolete Tokamak design... by ikewillis · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  5. Don't be stupid by FredFnord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Assuming it works... by rhakka · · Score: 5, Informative

    You might have a point, if this reactor were intended to SUPPLY energy for a large area.

    It's not. This is apparently an experimental reactor. We haven't made this work yet; this reactor is being built so we CAN make it work through experimentation. After that, I would imagine all the countries will simply build their own reactors to supply their countries (and neighbors who wish to purchase energy and/or share in the construction costs) with energy.

    What did you think, we'd build one reactor and supply the whole world with energy? Please. At the very least each country will want their own simply so their energy source simple to guarantee the existance of their own energy in case of war or natural disaster.

    If this technology WORKED, you think the US in particular wouldn't drop $10bil on it in a heartbeat to build it ourselves? It doesn't work yet, and that's why we all want to build this experimental reactor.

  7. Re:Why is this About US Opposing French Site ? by c_oflynn · · Score: 5, Informative
    Umm... perhaps time to RTFA?

    It SPECIFICALLY says this (after saying that Canada et al. support the Japan site):

    The US, in particular, has raised objections to the French option, citing its opposition to the Iraq invasion.
  8. Not quite by mongbot · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Childish behavior by gsdali · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't forget that France suffered several islamic terrorist attacks before 11/9/01 including a horrific attack on the Paris metro.

  10. Thank You Slashstupid.... by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"

  11. Re:Why is this About US Opposing French Site ? by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If a country (and by this I refer to the elected government) sends troops to fight and possibly be killed then I say no, they did not oppose the war."

    Nice rhetoric, now try to look at what the people in those countries thought. In the UK Blair went against the wishes of a vast tract of the British public, cabinet ministers resigned over it and it came close (unfortunately not close enough) to destroying his career. He basically acted like a dictator, overriding the wishes of the country. The same thing happened in Spain, where Aznar faced huge opposition from the public. The story is repeated in every country that "supported" the US: in Turkey the pulic opposition was near universal (98% opposition in one poll).

    No, the spineless governments decided to play nice with the new global empire.