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..."
Re:Good news in a way
by
jkrise
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It is a bit difficult to understand the role of money in taking decisions impacting national security. Surely, the US will have more control if the project is within it's own boundaries?
-
-- If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
This is actually a very good option
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Considering Tokamak based fusion plants will almost certainly not be commercially viable in the near future ITER seems like a waste of money, wasting time talking is a very good alternative to actually building the thing IMO. As they say, they basically have the science needed to build it. It is just about engineering and acquiring knowhow, not fundamental research.
Personally I find spending that much money to acquire the knowhow to build something you wouldnt want to build commercially a waste of good money. Give more money to La Sandia instead for their pulsed fusion research (yeah yeah, I know it hasnt produced anything worthwhile either... but it is comparitively cheap at least, it will be interesting to see how MTF turns out).
Both camps (Japan and France) have offered to take up half the costs to build in their locale. Answer is obvious. Take the original planned investment, and give half to each camp, and build 2. We'd probably learn alot more from having them both, and we could explore different options in the building process. And we could finally get to work and start seeing news on slashdot about the progess instead of the squabbling
Re:Good news in a way
by
ecklesweb
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Put the $2 million/year annual budget for FIRE towards ITER? And ITER wants to build a $5 billion plant? That'll work. We'll have that baby paid off in 2500 years flat!
If that $2 million figure really is the budget for FIRE, it probably costs that much just to send delegates across the pond to argue about where they're not going to build the reactor.
Jay
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
amh131
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well, it seems to me that having a black hole eat the moon wouldn't be *so* bad. I'll miss the thing, but the resulting singularity shouldn't cause massive gravitational changes since it will have the same mass as the moon and the same orbital velocity. Might even be sorta handy as a bottomless garbage pit.
Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?
by
Morgaine
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Put it on the Moon.
It's worth examining this proposition at face value for pros and cons, rather than immediately discounting it.
The first question that comes to mind is, does plasma research benefit from being carried out in a natural vacuum environment rather than needing apparatus to create one artificially? How does the degree of evacuation inside a fusion containment vessel compare with that in LEO, far orbit, or on the Moon? Is there any benefit to be gained from ever-better vacuums, such as freedom from plasma contamination?
Questions like those are probably more likely to be of interest than any handwaving about danger from black holes.
-- "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Don't be hasty.
by
Mukaikubo
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I see this possibly as the DOE saying to Congress, "Okay, you neoluddite twits, go ahead and deny funding to ITER. I dare ya. Then the US will be the only country save freaking TOGO that doesn't have fusion reactors and plentiful, cheap power in 2040."
Probably won't work, Congress is too short-term-focused, as elected officials tend to be. But it's a spirited attempt.
I think that the grandparent meant that any exploitation of solar energy is historical, incidental, and non-technological. In other words, if plants hadn't had photosynthesis for something approaching a billion years, we'd consider getting oxygen that way a long-shot, and look for a way to extract it from oil. (insert irony emoticon here)
The point being that solar energy efforts get a pittance of money compared to oil exploration. In the past, that has probably been justified. But within the last 10-20 years there have been numerous technological breakthroughs that could really make a difference, and deserve better funding.
-- The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
How much more energy do we need?
by
bigberk
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Although I think it's a good thing that the US is willing to work with an international effort, I am becoming more skeptical as time passes about the need to pursue new power sources. The assumption being that Fusion power won't so much replace oil, coal, and nuclear but rather just become a new way to generate power.
We already generate enough power world-wide. The reason we worry about power needs is because, (1) development perpetually accelerates industry's demands, and (2) we don't take energy conservation seriously.
The clue that something is wrong is in the words "perpetually accelerates". How can one earth, a closed system, sustain ever-increasing amounts of wastes produced by industrial throughputs? This is obviously not a sustainable practice. In other words it's not the lack of energy that's going to kill us, but rather the byproducts of what we process using that energy.
If we could just replace all 'dirtier' power sources with newer cleaner technologies, that would be great but I suspect that the more practical direction will be to just add new power facilities on top of existing ones. More power for the world means quicker resource consumption. This is not something we should be happy about, because it compromises our ability to live on earth in the long term.
Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
No doubt they've bought other technologies to slow development.
I've heard this asserted many times. But, the patent database is online, Slashdot refers to it all the time. I've very curious to know if you can post a patent number for an oil-alternative that is currently owned by an "oil" company for the purpose of suppressing its development.
Re:No closer
by
MultiModeRb87
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
While it's true that fusion has been "15 years away" for over 30 years, one must keep in mind that the 15 year estimate assumed that fusion would receive full funding.
Unfortunately, politics being what it is, the fusion research (more engineering, really) program has never been fully funded. If you were to look at the original projections for fusion development, and compare the amount of money estimated as needing to be spent to the amount that has actually been spent, you'll see that the state of the art in fusion is just about the same fraction of the way towards a reactor as the fraction of money which has been spent on it.
Entertainingly enough, the one single, solitary thing I like about the Bush administration is that it has really pushed to fund fusion research during its term in office. Makes me wish Kerry would publicly promise to do the same, so I could at least think about that when I vote for the lesser of two evils...
Re:Vested Interests
by
Jodka
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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.
Vice President Dick Cheney, head of the presidential task force studying our energy needs, favors building new nuclear power plants..
So much for your theory that cutting back on fusion research is part of a secret righ-wing plot to protect oil profits.
It took me 12 seconds (I timed it) to google that up. New tab, "Bush Nuclear Power", first link, first sentence, here.
Is is too much to ask that moderators spend 12 seconds before modding up crackpot propaganda such as the parent post? Of course it is. It's an election year, so you need to use your moderation points to advance your political prejudice that George Bush is public enemy number one. That's justified, because we have the proof: If he backs nuclear power, then that is proof that he is environmentally reckless. If he does not back nuclear power, then that is proof that he is conspiring to protect oil profits.
-- Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Re:Exploiting the sun
by
danharan
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
OK, I call BS.
Efficiency doesn't need to go up to make solar cost-effective. The most efficient PV modules are insanely expensive to build; give me 10% efficiency for a dirt cheap thin-film that I can put on my roof and I'll be happy. The sector is growing some 30% a year, and each doubling in production brings prices down. Modules are now around $4/watt, and the Japanese, with their solar roof program, have taken a leadership position and created a huge market. With that comes more incentive to find break-throughs in thin-film technology.
We likely won't have massive farms of the stuff any time soon. Building-integrated photo voltaics (BIPV if you want to google for more info) is one of the more promising avenues. Solar energy and consumption is distributed, as should be its conversion to electricity.
In a distributed generation system, local variations even out on a larger scale so you won't get massive drops as clouds pass over. Even in overcast days you can get 70% of the energy of a bright day, so the energy produced is not going to suddenly drop anywhere. In places where energy use is highly correlated to air conditionning, this is a very useful addition to the power mix.
Solar is a fascinating field, if much smaller than wind. I wish/.'ers would stop it with the over-the-top FUD, and get a bit better informed on the topic.
-- Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
WhiteWolf666
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It's not that hard.
You throw things at it.
Other than the whole nothing able to leave the event horizon thing, it's just an object, with momentum, mass, etc . ..
If you have a 1000Gg singularity (yes, thats absolutely tiny, but it might be what we would create in a laboratory), you could 'hit' it with objects, and they would 'push' it.
That's assuming it's not so small as to simply pass through anything.
The idea of a teeny-weeny laboratory singularity is not, actually, totally crazy.
Just mostly crazy. Extremely high desity != high mass.
Remember, density = mass/volume. You get a blackhole when you smash something hard enough to overcome the positive neutron pressure.
Which is pretty high, high enough that I'm not certain we'll get there anytime soon, but definetely within the realm of possiblity.
After all, if we made a blackhole (singularity), it's not probable we'll manufacture it with a mountain's worth of material, or a planet's worth.
More likely, it would just be a few errant particles we smashed together.
Kind of a neat thought, eh?
-- WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Slashdot Mirror
It is a bit difficult to understand the role of money in taking decisions impacting national security. Surely, the US will have more control if the project is within it's own boundaries?
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Considering Tokamak based fusion plants will almost certainly not be commercially viable in the near future ITER seems like a waste of money, wasting time talking is a very good alternative to actually building the thing IMO. As they say, they basically have the science needed to build it. It is just about engineering and acquiring knowhow, not fundamental research.
... but it is comparitively cheap at least, it will be interesting to see how MTF turns out).
Personally I find spending that much money to acquire the knowhow to build something you wouldnt want to build commercially a waste of good money. Give more money to La Sandia instead for their pulsed fusion research (yeah yeah, I know it hasnt produced anything worthwhile either
Both camps (Japan and France) have offered to take up half the costs to build in their locale. Answer is obvious. Take the original planned investment, and give half to each camp, and build 2. We'd probably learn alot more from having them both, and we could explore different options in the building process. And we could finally get to work and start seeing news on slashdot about the progess instead of the squabbling
Put the $2 million/year annual budget for FIRE towards ITER? And ITER wants to build a $5 billion plant? That'll work. We'll have that baby paid off in 2500 years flat!
If that $2 million figure really is the budget for FIRE, it probably costs that much just to send delegates across the pond to argue about where they're not going to build the reactor.
Jay
Well, it seems to me that having a black hole eat the moon wouldn't be *so* bad. I'll miss the thing, but the resulting singularity shouldn't cause massive gravitational changes since it will have the same mass as the moon and the same orbital velocity. Might even be sorta handy as a bottomless garbage pit.
Put it on the Moon.
It's worth examining this proposition at face value for pros and cons, rather than immediately discounting it.
The first question that comes to mind is, does plasma research benefit from being carried out in a natural vacuum environment rather than needing apparatus to create one artificially? How does the degree of evacuation inside a fusion containment vessel compare with that in LEO, far orbit, or on the Moon? Is there any benefit to be gained from ever-better vacuums, such as freedom from plasma contamination?
Questions like those are probably more likely to be of interest than any handwaving about danger from black holes.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I see this possibly as the DOE saying to Congress, "Okay, you neoluddite twits, go ahead and deny funding to ITER. I dare ya. Then the US will be the only country save freaking TOGO that doesn't have fusion reactors and plentiful, cheap power in 2040."
Probably won't work, Congress is too short-term-focused, as elected officials tend to be. But it's a spirited attempt.
I think that the grandparent meant that any exploitation of solar energy is historical, incidental, and non-technological. In other words, if plants hadn't had photosynthesis for something approaching a billion years, we'd consider getting oxygen that way a long-shot, and look for a way to extract it from oil. (insert irony emoticon here)
The point being that solar energy efforts get a pittance of money compared to oil exploration. In the past, that has probably been justified. But within the last 10-20 years there have been numerous technological breakthroughs that could really make a difference, and deserve better funding.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Although I think it's a good thing that the US is willing to work with an international effort, I am becoming more skeptical as time passes about the need to pursue new power sources. The assumption being that Fusion power won't so much replace oil, coal, and nuclear but rather just become a new way to generate power.
We already generate enough power world-wide. The reason we worry about power needs is because, (1) development perpetually accelerates industry's demands, and (2) we don't take energy conservation seriously.
The clue that something is wrong is in the words "perpetually accelerates". How can one earth, a closed system, sustain ever-increasing amounts of wastes produced by industrial throughputs? This is obviously not a sustainable practice. In other words it's not the lack of energy that's going to kill us, but rather the byproducts of what we process using that energy.
If we could just replace all 'dirtier' power sources with newer cleaner technologies, that would be great but I suspect that the more practical direction will be to just add new power facilities on top of existing ones. More power for the world means quicker resource consumption. This is not something we should be happy about, because it compromises our ability to live on earth in the long term.
No doubt they've bought other technologies to slow development.
I've heard this asserted many times. But, the patent database is online, Slashdot refers to it all the time. I've very curious to know if you can post a patent number for an oil-alternative that is currently owned by an "oil" company for the purpose of suppressing its development.
Unfortunately, politics being what it is, the fusion research (more engineering, really) program has never been fully funded. If you were to look at the original projections for fusion development, and compare the amount of money estimated as needing to be spent to the amount that has actually been spent, you'll see that the state of the art in fusion is just about the same fraction of the way towards a reactor as the fraction of money which has been spent on it.
Entertainingly enough, the one single, solitary thing I like about the Bush administration is that it has really pushed to fund fusion research during its term in office. Makes me wish Kerry would publicly promise to do the same, so I could at least think about that when I vote for the lesser of two evils...
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.
Vice President Dick Cheney, head of the presidential task force studying our energy needs, favors building new nuclear power plants..
So much for your theory that cutting back on fusion research is part of a secret righ-wing plot to protect oil profits.
It took me 12 seconds (I timed it) to google that up. New tab, "Bush Nuclear Power", first link, first sentence, here.
Is is too much to ask that moderators spend 12 seconds before modding up crackpot propaganda such as the parent post? Of course it is. It's an election year, so you need to use your moderation points to advance your political prejudice that George Bush is public enemy number one. That's justified, because we have the proof: If he backs nuclear power, then that is proof that he is environmentally reckless. If he does not back nuclear power, then that is proof that he is conspiring to protect oil profits.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
OK, I call BS.
/.'ers would stop it with the over-the-top FUD, and get a bit better informed on the topic.
Efficiency doesn't need to go up to make solar cost-effective. The most efficient PV modules are insanely expensive to build; give me 10% efficiency for a dirt cheap thin-film that I can put on my roof and I'll be happy. The sector is growing some 30% a year, and each doubling in production brings prices down. Modules are now around $4/watt, and the Japanese, with their solar roof program, have taken a leadership position and created a huge market. With that comes more incentive to find break-throughs in thin-film technology.
We likely won't have massive farms of the stuff any time soon. Building-integrated photo voltaics (BIPV if you want to google for more info) is one of the more promising avenues. Solar energy and consumption is distributed, as should be its conversion to electricity.
In a distributed generation system, local variations even out on a larger scale so you won't get massive drops as clouds pass over. Even in overcast days you can get 70% of the energy of a bright day, so the energy produced is not going to suddenly drop anywhere. In places where energy use is highly correlated to air conditionning, this is a very useful addition to the power mix.
Solar is a fascinating field, if much smaller than wind. I wish
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
It's not that hard.
.
You throw things at it.
Other than the whole nothing able to leave the event horizon thing, it's just an object, with momentum, mass, etc . .
If you have a 1000Gg singularity (yes, thats absolutely tiny, but it might be what we would create in a laboratory), you could 'hit' it with objects, and they would 'push' it.
That's assuming it's not so small as to simply pass through anything.
The idea of a teeny-weeny laboratory singularity is not, actually, totally crazy.
Just mostly crazy. Extremely high desity != high mass.
Remember, density = mass/volume. You get a blackhole when you smash something hard enough to overcome the positive neutron pressure.
Which is pretty high, high enough that I'm not certain we'll get there anytime soon, but definetely within the realm of possiblity.
After all, if we made a blackhole (singularity), it's not probable we'll manufacture it with a mountain's worth of material, or a planet's worth.
More likely, it would just be a few errant particles we smashed together.
Kind of a neat thought, eh?
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell