Posted by
michael
on from the now-I'll-never-get-a-mr.-fusion dept.
Chuck1318 writes "The US is halting its national nuclear fusion energy project, FIRE, and pinning its hopes on the internation fusion research program ITER. However, ITER is stalled over a dispute on where to locate the facility. The dream of fusion power is getting no closer..."
Good news in a way
by
pt99par
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think that this may get fusion closer becouse now the US can put more money into the international project instead of its own. One good project instead of two half good projects.
Re:Good news in a way
by
Dr.+Hok
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Maybe they found out that it wouldn't be good for national security if the US were in control?
-- Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
Re:Good news in a way
by
Daniel+Dvorkin
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
We could easily fund FIRE, our share of ITER, and a couple of other programs as well. Which is what we should be doing, because there's no guarantee that any one approach is the right one. Why do people always think there's going to be one magic bullet?
They're talking about $5 billion, total, to build ITER. That's miniscule money compared to what we're throwing away on fighting in a certain country known for its oil...
-- The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Good news in a way
by
R.Caley
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
the US can put more money into the international project instead of its own.
The US wasn't putting any money into FIRE. $2 million for people to sit around tables saying `wouldn't it be nice if we had a fusion programme' (i.e. a pre-conceptual study) is nothing but a fig leaf. It was a place holder to say the US might set up a programme of it's own if it didn't get all it's own way with ITER. Aparently this didn't impress anyone, so there is no point in doing another $2million nothing next year.
-- _O_ .|< The named which can be named is not the true named
The fact that they are having one giant argument about where to put this thing, to the extent that it halted the process, is pathetic and shows how petty the countries involved are. It is obvious that they are not interested in the science and simply want to be able to say "look what we have".
Fusion has been "15-20 years away" for something like 30 years now, hasn't it? If it's not something, it's something else. Meanwhile, we have a massive fusion plant in the center of the solar system that's been operating maintenance free for eons and we're barely even exploiting it.
-- You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Vested Interests
by
tiled_rainbows
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
And furthermore, it seems to me that fusion research in the EU is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that people here instinctively equate all nuclear power with dangerous, radioactive evil.
Which is a great shame, because it seems that fusion is the best long-term bet to avoid either:
a) the major cities of the world being swamped in a series of catastrophic floods as the icecaps break up
and/or
b) the world running out of fuels before finding adequate replacement and reverting to a state of pre-industrial, Mad-Max-style savagery.
So, in conclusion, I reckon that if our respective governments aren't willing to fund proper fusion research, then they should at least get working on the Thunderdome.
Re:Vested Interests
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
You might be right, but remember there's really no such thing as an oil company. There are only energy companies. The smart ones recognize that, the dumb ones think it's all about oil. No-one wants oil. What they want is motive power.
Also remember that not much oil goes into power stations - mostly they're natural gas, coal nuclear, hydro, etc. Oil ends up in automobiles of one sort or another. Pitch it to Bush that Texas can provide all the oil the US needs and fusion will supply the rest and he can get the US out of the Middle East for good (barring support for Israel of course), and he'll jump at the chance, I reckon.
Re:answer is obvious
by
dykofone
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But then what country would want to foot half the bill for something that another country has anyway? The only reason either country is offering that half is to be the exclusive site of international fusion research.
You're idea makes perfect sense, from a "let's get the job done and learn some science" point of view. But that really doesn't seem to be the point here. As many have pointed out, it looks like just another ISS.
I'm kind of interested in who would own the technology once it's completed. Sure, governments subsidize and control energy technologies, but they still have to hire private companies to build and design many of the parts. Most nuclear reactors in this country have turbines built be either GE or Westinghouse, and in EU it's Siemens.
What risks?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You guys sound like there is terrible risk with fusion plant... and argue where far away you should put it (moon, North Korea, Iran... "if not already polluted" and so on). You do not seem to understand what you are talking about!
What is the waste that comes from fusion plant? Can it blow up with chain reaction? The walls of the plant will in time get active. And the problem with fusion is that we can not have a sustainable raction going on - if it gets out of hand it'll just die.
Sad to see USA close their project. I just hope this makes to remaining project that much better with more resources... at least in theory.
Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
MarkEst1973
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I was recently reading about hybrid cars that would be able to sell their excess electricity back to the power grid. Likewise for solar panels on homes. The energy generated would be used to heat water and whatnot, then the rest feeds back into the grid, causing the power meter to run backwards a bit and reduce your bill.
Like distributed computing, I think distributed power generation would work amazingly well. If there were millions and millions of homes generating power alongside our power plants (nukes, not dirty fossil fuel plants), we could achieve energy independence from foreign nations, reduce fossil fuel dependence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil/coal buring powerplants.
The challenges are difficult to overcome, however.
The big oil and gas companies, of course, would lobby against any distributed power generation. I'm sure they don't want millions of solar powered homes. There is no money in it for them.
Solar panels are, I think, relatively inefficient and expensive. Their efficacy would need to be boosted and the price would have to go down.
I can see a day, though, when everyone is generating everyone's power through distributed generation. It's cheaper, greener, and it just makes sense... which is probably why it will never happen.
Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil wells
by
Paul+Crowley
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"Energy companies" that own a lot of oil wells tend to be "energy companies" that are quite keen on protecting the value of their investments.
And if fusion delivered what fission failed to - energy too cheap to meter - you can bet it wouldn't be long before significantly less oil was going into automobiles of one sort or another.
Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc
by
k98sven
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Projects that have proven future potential such as Zero Point Energy should be pursued far more vigorously,
Proven how? Zero-point energy as an energy source is pure psuedoscientific bullshit. And that's a fact. They have yet to produce any reproducible experiment proving their bogus hypotheses, or any valid theory to give reason to believe any of this stuff.
and railroaded past those hopeless 'scientists' who still think such things aren't possible.
Being everyone who actually knows something about these matters.
Dismiss this as lunacy and mod-me down? - just remember this as an 'I told you so' when it turns out to be valid all along...
Sure, it's lunacy. I don't believe in education through moderation though.
Re:How much more energy do we need?
by
FlyingOrca
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Excellent point, and one that is often overlooked. I would add that the most effective way to manage energy demand, environmental impact, and resource sharing on a global scale is to reduce the "demand side". In other words, reduce our population by an order of magnitude.
Sure, it's a political nightmare, and it would require measures that would make China's look Utopian. In the long run, though, I believe it is the only way to achieve sustainability as long as we are constrained to this planet. After all, it's axiomatic: If we don't manage our population, natural forces will manage it for us.:-/
-- Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
the ironry? president's support?
by
RevAaron
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
on the page it reads: The President has made achieving commercial fusion power the highest long-term energy priority for our Nation. DOE Office of Science Strategic Plan February, 2004
Heh. Any one else amused by that? That 2 mil/year really shows how important the program is. And cancelling the program is even better.
--
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we
by
mwood
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Oh, "too cheap to meter" never happens. We build better meters faster than we overtake them with falling commodity prices.
I remember when comm. satellites were going to make long-distance telephony too cheap to meter. Look around: lots of telcos meter every call you make, across the globe or over the fence.
What *does* happen is "costs us less to make the same amount of profit."
It is stalled because of the US
by
johannesg
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
They disagreed with France as the location because of Frances opposition to the Iraq war. Of course now Europe has dug its heels into the sand and won't agree to any choice the US finds acceptable.
I just love to see the only _really good_ energy source that is in our future being delayed and delayed because of petty politics.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
meadowsp
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The people of Iraq declared war on you on September 11th 2001?
References please.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
WhiteWolf666
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Don't be so dense.
Iraq != Taliban, or Al-Qaeda.
I agree with the war in Iraq, however, for entire different reasons.
Get your shit straight, and then it will make more sense.
U.S. has maintained a virtual occupation (containment) of Iraq since Desert Storm 1. We had no exit strategy.
We could have either a) left the area, pulled out our planes, and let Saddam did as he wanted, b) invaded, and force regime change, or c) maintain the SQ, shooting SAM sites, and occasionally have a plane shot down by Saddam's troops.
My opinion, B) was the best idea.
Unfortunately, we didn't consult the international community, we decided to pin it on WMD, we didn't bother to try and force Saddam out of power, and we still maintain that regime change was a fiction necessitated by WMD.
Saddam was a complete asshole, but our diplomatic efforts surrounding his removal were beyond terrible.
Anyways, these people (Iraqs) did not declare war on us. Infact, they never declared war on anyways.
Their autocratic fascist dictator declared war on Kuwait, and we only just now decided to end his rule.
A Comedy of Errors.
-- WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Slashdot Mirror
I think that this may get fusion closer becouse now the US can put more money into the international project instead of its own. One good project instead of two half good projects.
The fact that they are having one giant argument about where to put this thing, to the extent that it halted the process, is pathetic and shows how petty the countries involved are. It is obvious that they are not interested in the science and simply want to be able to say "look what we have".
Fusion has been "15-20 years away" for something like 30 years now, hasn't it? If it's not something, it's something else. Meanwhile, we have a massive fusion plant in the center of the solar system that's been operating maintenance free for eons and we're barely even exploiting it.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
And furthermore, it seems to me that fusion research in the EU is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that people here instinctively equate all nuclear power with dangerous, radioactive evil.
Which is a great shame, because it seems that fusion is the best long-term bet to avoid either:
a) the major cities of the world being swamped in a series of catastrophic floods as the icecaps break up
and/or
b) the world running out of fuels before finding adequate replacement and reverting to a state of pre-industrial, Mad-Max-style savagery.
So, in conclusion, I reckon that if our respective governments aren't willing to fund proper fusion research, then they should at least get working on the Thunderdome.
evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
You're idea makes perfect sense, from a "let's get the job done and learn some science" point of view. But that really doesn't seem to be the point here. As many have pointed out, it looks like just another ISS.
I'm kind of interested in who would own the technology once it's completed. Sure, governments subsidize and control energy technologies, but they still have to hire private companies to build and design many of the parts. Most nuclear reactors in this country have turbines built be either GE or Westinghouse, and in EU it's Siemens.
You guys sound like there is terrible risk with fusion plant... and argue where far away you should put it (moon, North Korea, Iran... "if not already polluted" and so on). You do not seem to understand what you are talking about!
What is the waste that comes from fusion plant? Can it blow up with chain reaction?
The walls of the plant will in time get active. And the problem with fusion is that we can not have a sustainable raction going on - if it gets out of hand it'll just die.
Sad to see USA close their project. I just hope this makes to remaining project that much better with more resources... at least in theory.
Like distributed computing, I think distributed power generation would work amazingly well. If there were millions and millions of homes generating power alongside our power plants (nukes, not dirty fossil fuel plants), we could achieve energy independence from foreign nations, reduce fossil fuel dependence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil/coal buring powerplants.
The challenges are difficult to overcome, however.
The big oil and gas companies, of course, would lobby against any distributed power generation. I'm sure they don't want millions of solar powered homes. There is no money in it for them.
Solar panels are, I think, relatively inefficient and expensive. Their efficacy would need to be boosted and the price would have to go down.
I can see a day, though, when everyone is generating everyone's power through distributed generation. It's cheaper, greener, and it just makes sense... which is probably why it will never happen.
"Energy companies" that own a lot of oil wells tend to be "energy companies" that are quite keen on protecting the value of their investments.
And if fusion delivered what fission failed to - energy too cheap to meter - you can bet it wouldn't be long before significantly less oil was going into automobiles of one sort or another.
Xenu loves you!
Projects that have proven future potential such as Zero Point Energy should be pursued far more vigorously,
Proven how? Zero-point energy as an energy source is pure psuedoscientific bullshit.
And that's a fact. They have yet to produce any reproducible experiment proving their bogus hypotheses, or any valid theory to give reason to believe any of this stuff.
and railroaded past those hopeless 'scientists' who still think such things aren't possible.
Being everyone who actually knows something about these matters.
Dismiss this as lunacy and mod-me down? - just remember this as an 'I told you so' when it turns out to be valid all along...
Sure, it's lunacy. I don't believe in education through moderation though.
Excellent point, and one that is often overlooked. I would add that the most effective way to manage energy demand, environmental impact, and resource sharing on a global scale is to reduce the "demand side". In other words, reduce our population by an order of magnitude.
:-/
Sure, it's a political nightmare, and it would require measures that would make China's look Utopian. In the long run, though, I believe it is the only way to achieve sustainability as long as we are constrained to this planet. After all, it's axiomatic: If we don't manage our population, natural forces will manage it for us.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
on the page it reads:
The President has made achieving commercial fusion power the highest long-term energy priority for our Nation.
DOE Office of Science Strategic Plan February, 2004
Heh. Any one else amused by that? That 2 mil/year really shows how important the program is. And cancelling the program is even better.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Oh, "too cheap to meter" never happens. We build better meters faster than we overtake them with falling commodity prices.
I remember when comm. satellites were going to make long-distance telephony too cheap to meter. Look around: lots of telcos meter every call you make, across the globe or over the fence.
What *does* happen is "costs us less to make the same amount of profit."
I just love to see the only _really good_ energy source that is in our future being delayed and delayed because of petty politics.
The people of Iraq declared war on you on September 11th 2001?
References please.
Don't be so dense.
Iraq != Taliban, or Al-Qaeda.
I agree with the war in Iraq, however, for entire different reasons.
Get your shit straight, and then it will make more sense.
U.S. has maintained a virtual occupation (containment) of Iraq since Desert Storm 1. We had no exit strategy.
We could have either a) left the area, pulled out our planes, and let Saddam did as he wanted, b) invaded, and force regime change, or c) maintain the SQ, shooting SAM sites, and occasionally have a plane shot down by Saddam's troops.
My opinion, B) was the best idea.
Unfortunately, we didn't consult the international community, we decided to pin it on WMD, we didn't bother to try and force Saddam out of power, and we still maintain that regime change was a fiction necessitated by WMD.
Saddam was a complete asshole, but our diplomatic efforts surrounding his removal were beyond terrible.
Anyways, these people (Iraqs) did not declare war on us. Infact, they never declared war on anyways.
Their autocratic fascist dictator declared war on Kuwait, and we only just now decided to end his rule.
A Comedy of Errors.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell