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..."
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
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
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: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
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
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
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.
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