U.S. Cancels Fusion Program

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..."

Comments

Put it on the Moon.

[torpor]

That way, we get two programs in one.

Oh, and also, if it goes out of control and creates a small black hole that slowly starts consuming everything, we'll have time to use the bits of the moon that are left to shove the whole mess off into the Sun.

Or something ...

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[Icarus1919]

The fusion reactor isn't what we need to worry about, it's the particle colliding experiments that could cause the whole planet to change into a different form of matter, strange matter. Whether this will give us superpowers or not is yet to be determined.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[BabyDave]

Oh, and also, if it goes out of control and creates a small black hole that slowly starts consuming everything, we'll have time to use the bits of the moon that are left to shove the whole mess off into the Sun.

Yes, 'cause if there's one place we should dump an all-consuming singularity, it's in the middle of our most important source of heat, light and food (via photosynthesis). At least we'll have a backup source, namely ... er, the fusion research station we just fired into the sun. Fuck.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[tomhudson]

Nah, if you read the article, it states:

is stalled over a dispute on where to locate the facility.

... because they can't decide which middle east/third world country deserves to be ground zeroH^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe test site

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[amh131]

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.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[ch-chuck]

The Union Aerospace Corporation could probably handle a moon research facility with no problem.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Third world country like... France or Japan, which are contesting for the site?

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[meringuoid]

Nah. We blow up the Moon, we just have to put up with it. Earth will become a total backwater, of course, what with all the impacts, but that would certainly accelerate the settlement of the solar system.

With a network of jump gates, and the terraforming of most of the larger satellites of Jupiter and Saturn (heat source: to be determined), we could put together quite a nice culture.

Note: be sure to switch off all artificially intelligent laser-armed spy satellites before leaving planet. Who knows what they'll take into their minds over a hundred years or so...

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[mwood]

If they can't find anybody Over There willing to take ITER due to it having scary words like "nuclear" in its description, maybe they could site it in the U.S. We probably have a facility already worked out that might be able to house it. :-/

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[Paradigm Lost]

Well, it seems to me that having a black hole eat the moon wouldn't be *so* bad.

But the evenings would be much less romantic. And what about the poor Werewolves? WON'T SOMEONE *PLEASE* THINK OF THE WEREWOLVES?!!

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[FireFury03]

Getting rid of the moon would likely be pretty catestrophic too - we rely quite heavilly on the tidal forces.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[Anonymous Coward]

The big deal isn't who has to house it, but who gets to.

I, for one (speaking as a future fusion researcher) would rather spend my time on coast of France than on windy north island of Japan. ;)

Of course, there are all those things like the benefits to local economy and science everyone is out to get.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[aelbric]

Well, maybe not Japan.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[Glog]

Actually the two counties of choice are Japan and France.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[_anomaly_]

Don't you mean scary words like "nucular"?
;-)

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[grumpygrodyguy]

Oh, and also, if it goes out of control and creates a small black hole that slowly starts consuming everything

We've already got that. It's called the Hubbert Peak

Those of us who haven't seen Farenheit 911 might wonder who would benefit most from $7/gallon gas prices...and who they have on thier payroll. Cancelling projects like these is one way to keep them happy.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[WhiteWolf666]

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?

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[YU Nicks NE Way]

According to Steven Hawking, they don't actually exist -- the singularity never forms in a quantum mechanical universe.

Bear in mind that a black hole with lunar mass would have a tiny event horizon. Given the amount of thermal noise in the solar center, it would be very hard for anything to "fall in" without being bumped out first. In time, the hole might consume the sun, but my back of the envelope calculations suggest that it's far more likely that the pseudo-singularity would decay in a burst of Hawking radiation long before it consumed anything.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[Christopher Thomas]

Yes, but then it would suffer pretty badly from Hawking Radiation. Anyone know how to calculate how quickly a black hole the mass of the moon would radiate away?

Far, far longer than the present age of the universe.

Same answer if you have a black hole with the mass of an asteroid.

Only very low-mass holes radiate brightly enough to shed mass at any reasonable rate.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[san]

But as far as gravity is concerned it doesn't really matter whether the moon has its familiar shape or a point mass.

We could just choose to leave the singularity there in orbit and observe funky gravitational lense effects!

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[blackpaw]

I shudder every time I see a blackhole related story on slashdot, it always reveals the incredible lack of scientific knowledge and/or critical thinking skills possessed by the average slashbot

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[Rei]

Well, I found a formula. The lifetime of a black hole of M solar masses is approximately 10e71 * M^3 seconds. The moon is 7.35e22 kg. The sun is 1.99e30 kg. That means that the moon is 3.69e-8 solar masses. That works out to 5e49 seconds to radiate away, which is about 1.6e42 years. So, yes, it wouldn't be disappearing very quickly. Now, given that e=mc^2, the moon has an energy of 6.61e39 joules, so *on average* the moon would radiate away 1.3e-10 watts (yes, I know that the average can be misleading here, but it'd be hard to get any other number). It's tiny, but would at least be detectable.

Lets pick a random asteroid - say, Eros. It is about 3.36e-15 solar masses. That comes out to about 1.2e21 years. Still no short time, mind you, but it will radiate a lot more - just over 15 kw on average.

Re:Put it on the Moon.

[Christopher Thomas]

How would something with the mass of an asteroid become a singularity in the first place? Don't you need something an order or two of magnitude more massive than the Sun to curve the space enough to form a singularity? Or am I missing something completely here?

Gravitational collapse can only create holes above about 3 solar masses, but other methods of formation can produce smaller holes. Shortly after the big bang, fluctuations in density of the primordial plasma should have produced regions dense enough to generate event horizons. This would have created black holes of all sizes, including ones far below the normal formation limit, and perhaps ones small enough to have evaporated by now or be emitting Hawking radiation strongly enough to detect. There have been searches for the gamma rays these holes should be producing, but they've so far come up empty, which places constraints on how many small primordial holes formed. Dark matter limits place constraints on how many large ones formed.

The second way is to accelerate a particle to the Planck energy. As it gains energy, its wavelength gets shorter and its mass gets larger, until its wavelength is small enough to be inside its event horizon. This gives you a black hole with a radius equal to the Planck length. Nobody's sure what happens then, but the most likely scenario is that it immediately evaporates in a burst of Hawking radiation. Accelerating particles to this energy is not practical, but it's remotely possible that some natural processes will do it, and the temperatre of Hawking radiation right over a black hole's event horizon is close to the Planck temperature (i.e., particles have close to Planck energy). The lower energies we see are the result of a very impressive gravitational redshift.

Lastly, we don't have to propose formation mechanisms for small black holes to be able to talk about them :). There are many fun things they're useful for.

Good news in a way

[pt99par]

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

[dave1791]

Or bad news in a way...

Instead of actually building the thing, we can get into a winkie measuring contest about where to build it.

Re:Good news in a way

[jkrise]

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?

-

Re:Good news in a way

[Dr. Hok]

Maybe they found out that it wouldn't be good for national security if the US were in control?

Re:Good news in a way

[ecklesweb]

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:Good news in a way

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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 ...

Re:Good news in a way

[R.Caley]

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.

Re:Good news in a way

[Progman3K]

Reads like it's them; same number of laser, all focused onto a tiny pellet...

I remember reading that a lot of the technological hurdles for that project come from the fact that most of the laser-amplification technology they plan to use doesn't exist at their scale (yet), and that that'll be the most interesting part of getting this working, developing these new technologies.

I'd hope we get the manufacture of certain materials in space going, because I think they'll need it (ultra-pure glass, perfectly-shaped focusing lenses, etc...).

Space is the place.

Re:Good news in a way

[IronicCheese]

Parent is right. For comparison:
We're blowing about $4 billion a MONTH in Iraq.

The cost of war is high.
The opportunity cost is staggering.

Re:Good news in a way

[jspaleta]

I really have trouble believing that any sort of fusion project, especially one funded by the states, has a measly budget of 2 million a year.


Projects are done in stages. 2 million a year on a project still in essentially a design stage, before it reaches the engineer stage where actually prototypes of important physical systems are built and tested, isn't so far-fetched.

You have to take a look at hard far down the road FIRE is to put the cost in perspective. FIRE was just beginning to assess the cost of contruction of things like the magnetic field coils. If FIRE was still a priority, there are several rounds of additional funding that would have gone into the project as it met specific review criteria. These project don't get budgetted for the full project at the beginning. There are multiple phases, with reviews, that if successful mean more money when its needed to actually build things. You don't get the money to even build prototype of critical systems till there is a significant review process of the physics and engineering concerns.

-jef

Russia

[NETHED]

Unfortunatly, many brilliant plasma physists are now out of work and have no income in Russia. Here is a link to one of the institutes that previously was funded laviously by the Soviet Union, but since its dissolvement, it now is a shadow of its former self.

A shame.

Re:Russia

[justins]

Sorry, thats hillarious. Do these plasma physicists get to have a glass of Vodka instead of water?

Yes, but it's heavy vodka.

Fusion is so 90s

[laserbeak]

Fusion, pfft. I wanna see dark matter power reactors.

Possible ITER sites

[BubbaThePirate]

Four possible candidates were:
Clarington,Canada; Vandellòs, Spain; Cadarache, France; and Rokkasho-mura, Japan.
Clarington and Vandellòs were withdrawn. But by the rate they're going, Japan and France might be blown off as well.

More info from ITER's site.

Petty

[RU_Areo]

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".

Re:Petty

[SillyNickName4me]

> It is obvious that they are not interested in the science and simply want to be able to say "look what we have".

Hmm, and the USA would never ever do that eh?

Re:Petty

[Atzanteol]

In the back rooms of every country are the generals and paranoid politicians - nobody wants to see other countries acquire something as militarily useful as fusion, when it could be used against them.

Thermonuclear weapons already use fusion, and we had *thousands* of them. The soviets detonated a ~50 megaton bomb at one point (57Mton I think). What could *possibly* lead to bigger/better weapons from this research?

AFAIK making a 'bomb' is much easier than making fusion into a viable energy source.

No closer

[Junior J. Junior III]

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.

Re:No closer

[StrawberryFrog]

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.

Yeah, but safety standards have since been raised, and you couldn't get that design built today. It may not be nearby, but it is completely unshielded, and prolonged exposure to it's radiation is known to cause cancer.

Re:No closer

[MrBruceLee]

"barely even exploiting it"? How about "without the sun the earth wouldn't survive"?

Re:No closer

[dpilot]

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.

Re:No closer

[meringuoid]

Oh, unshielded, you say? Well, let's just lift off away that convective zone there and see what 'unshielded' really means... You got your factor three billion sunblock handy, mortals?

-- J. Hover, chief stellar engineer, Sirius Sector

Re:No closer

[meringuoid]

The Sun puts out about 3.9E26 watts, of which the Earth intercepts some 1.7E17 watts.

We're using about a two-billionth of the Sun's power. I think that counts as 'barely even exploiting it'.

Re:No closer

[MultiModeRb87]

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:No closer

[LaCosaNostradamus]

That quip about the massive fusion plant is no joke. For all the money we've blown on fusion development efforts, we could have had a thriving solar industry by now, with electricity predicted to be "too cheap to meter" ... and even though it would've turned out to be just as expensive as the standard fuels coal, oil), those standards have been thrown into suspicion due to pollution and war. In short, solar energy would have been on-line in time to short circuit the intense social problems that the standard fuels have brought us.

We are even further ahead on wind turbine technology, considering generation capacity, than we are on solar. That's why I cheered once the Superexpensive Superconducting Supercollider was killed off. Those programs are boondoggles from the word go, hence pathetic. Culturally, we've no willpower to see a technology through to the end result: installed plant servicing consumers. Culturally, we have too many academic parasites who want to study things endlessly.

Vested Interests

[tiled_rainbows]

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

[sql*kitten]

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:Vested Interests

[mehtajr]

Seeing as they're all turning in record profits, I think the CEOs of Shell, BP, etc. would tell you they have no problem with selling fossil fuels.

I wouldn't expect them to want to move to alternative energy sources-- after all, once you've sold someone the Shell branded fusion reactor, they're not going to be filling up their tank every week, paying prettymuch whatever price you demand.

It's a question of taking a large amount of revenue up front, or the guaranteed revenue stream over the long term. I suspect that most businesses would take the latter.

Plus, it necessitates scrapping a giant amount of their infrastructure (drilling operations, refineries, possibly even gas stations), which is expensive to do (buying out employees, etc.).

Granted, there will still be associated costs with the Shell branded fusion reactor, unless they bundle Mr. Fusion with it, but I think the long-run revenue of fossil fuels would still bring in more money.

Re:Vested Interests

[SillyNickName4me]

> 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.

Just some small little sidenotes...

First of all, a substantial part of the electricity in EUrope is generated using nuclear power, especially in France.

Second, people here know quite well that fusion is not having the same issues with redioactive waste as more traditional forms of nuclear power

Third and last, people in EUrope have good reason to be wary of nuclear power. Have you seen and felt the effects of a big nuclear accident? most of Europe did, they KNOW what they fear, a nuclear accident is not an unlikely theoretical possibility, it has becoem reality in a rather prominent way already.

Then, just try to imagine what it is to take all the population of the USA, add soem 50% to it, and then sqeeze it onto a landmass 1/5th of the USA. You will get a lot closer to the population density that EUrope has to deal with, and with that population density, spots where you can put up a nuclear powerplant safely are rather limited really.

Re:Vested Interests

[EinarH]

The big oil companies, those that really operate on a global basis, are "energy companies" per se but in reallity they are still mainly oil companies..

Remember that they have invested _billions_ each year in their oil business. They have paid (or the state has paid for them) insane amounts of money for all the production capasity, transportation, knowledge, contracts, refineries and all the other infrastructure. They know the oil business, the other people in the oil business and the customers in the oil business.
Most likly they conclude that with a status quo, they will continue to literarily print money.

The incentives for them to change the energy situation are few and elusive. In a world based more on renewable energy and distributed harvesting of the energy they are not guaranteed success. Such a situation would increase competition and make it harder for them to compete at what they are good at.

And you are incorrect about most of the oil ends up in automobiles etc. IIRC, USA uses about 40% of the oil for automobiles/transportation, 20% for power/heating/electro and 40% for industry/chem/stupid plastic toys.

Re:Vested Interests

[marcello_dl]

Shell is an established oil company, you are assuming it could become a key player in the business of fusion reactor but that's not certain at all, especially if fusion is left to private funded research.

Re:Vested Interests

[maximilln]

You might be right, but remember there's really no such thing as an oil company. There are only energy companies

Precisely. GW Bush didn't invade Iraq because he wanted the oil. The financial movers and shakers in this nation needed an excuse to drive an American wedge into OPEC. OPEC has had a stranglehold on the US for decades and it wasn't getting any better. The only way that the US could ever break the controlling hold of OPEC was to physical invade their territory. If OPEC had been allowed to continue their trend then their money, money which came from sale of oil, would never be spent on alternative research. By putting an American political wedge into the Middle East we can finally hold some real bargaining power when it comes time to decide where the trillions of dollars in oil revenue get parceled out.

Re:Vested Interests

[Jodka]

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.

Re:Vested Interests

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Second, people here know quite well that fusion is not having the same issues with redioactive waste as more traditional forms of nuclear power

That's a myth. Most of the energy in a fusion reaction comes out as fast neutrons; these gradually mess up the structure of the reactor vessel and make it radioactive.

Secondly, most or all of the possible ways to catch the fast neutrons create secondary nuclear waste.

The idea that fusion power is 'clean' is not backed up by the facts.

Re:Vested Interests

[semafour]

Most likly they conclude that with a status quo, they will continue to literarily print money

Why is it that people insist on using the word "literally" when they mean figuratively?

Re:Vested Interests

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

White House types (and Congressional types as well) have the dubious privilege of putting their assets into a blind trust, which must basically sell it all off and put it elsewhere, without telling the principal just where it is invested (hence "blind"). This is to prevent that particular form of corruption.

Far more dangerous is Oil Companies (or Software companies, Disney, Media companies, etc) making direct political contributions to elected officials. Which they all do, to all candidates.

Except Nader, maybe. Not sure who is making contributions to him, but I expect they all have political axes to grind...

In other words...

[eclectro]

The US has put its fusion program on ice and has created a new form of Cold Fusion!

ba da dum

This is actually a very good option

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:This is actually a very good option

[Strontium-90]

The only way that we can ever make fusion commercially viable is if we do build things like ITER. As for the timescale, if the US fusion programs were properly funded, there would probably be a lot more progress toward reaching the goal of having fully functional fusion power plants. However, I don't want to get into issues of funding.

To say that ITER is just about "engineering and acquiring knowhow" shows that you are simply ignorant about all that is and will be going on with the project. There will be a great deal of information on large plasmas produced at ITER that cannot be produced anywhere else, since ITER will be the largest fusion tokomak ever built. Learning how larger plasmas behave in real-life situations instead of computer simulations is definitely on the list of information that I would like to know before building a real reactor. Additionally, developments made at ITER, both in fundamental science and engineering carry over to such things as propulsion systems for space exploration, large scale information management (Do you realize how much information is produced during a 1 sec. test on a tokomak?), materials science, and other fields. No, to say that ITER is "just about engineering and acquiring knowhow" shows that you just don't understand: Much of science is about building devices (of whatever kind) to test your theories, obtaining additional knowledge, and then refining your theories and tests.

Do some real reading about what you call a "waste of money" before you write it off as such. There are lots of fringe benefits to tokomak-based fusion research that you simply don't get with pulsed laser fusion. However, given the potential benefits from having functional fusion power plants, I think both strategies should be researched to their full potential. Just because I don't know a whole lot about pulsed laser fusion doesn't mean that I'm going to just write it off as expensive and unproductive (which is what my limited knowledge tells me). I would have to learn a lot more about it before being able to justify doing that.

Deja Vu...

[Viceice]

This smells like it has the beginings of another ISS type fiasco.

With almost all things 'International' being done for the sake of individual national glory while shifting costs to others, one would wonder if it is wise to depend solely on such an international effort.

The world needs to break free from fossle feuls as a source of energy, and i think competition would drive the effort faster then arguing over stupid things like where to put a building.

YAPM

[grunt107]

Yet Another Pissing Match?

It seems these days there is a battle of EU vs US (and others). One side wants France. One Japan. Science waits.

I say, pick a desolate area in Asiatic Russia. Land will be cheap (if not already polluted), and the scientists will have less outside distractions. And the EU faction can claim victory even though it will be geographically closer to the Japan land area.

The goal is to get clean, enconomically viable fusion WORKING. Not to see who has the facility.

answer is obvious

[fakeplasticusername]

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:answer is obvious

[dykofone]

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.

Re:answer is obvious

[chrono325]

No no no, you guys have it all wrong. George Bush finally saw spiderman 2 and became worried over the possibility of robot terrorist octopus men.

Put it on the Sun

[PingPongBoy]

Oh. It's already there. Time for lunch.

Re:Put it on the Sun

[Anonymous Writer]

If you try to put it there but it's too hot, then do it at night.

Disputes

[SpaghettiPattern]

ITER is stalled over a dispute on where to locate the facility

This reminds me of a passage from of a Woody Allen book I read. Two professors chasing and hitting each other with umbrellas over the campus area in order to settle the dispute on whether the bell marks college end or break begin.

What risks?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?

[Morgaine]

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.

Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?

[Progman3K]

Even if you build it on the moon, you still have to transfer the power back towards consumers on earth, and THAT'S a big problem.

Microwaves? Too dangerous.
Space elevator relay? Theoretically possible, but practically impossible to build, and costly...

Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?

[rs79]

you still have to transfer the power back towards consumers on earth, and THAT'S a big problem ....lots of little rechargable batteries.

Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?

[dtfusion]

The vacuum in space is much much better than the best laboratory plasmas and the surface of the moon is comparable to lab plasmas.( 1 particle per cubic cm for space, 10^6 to 10^5 for the the moon, and 10^5 to 10^4 for the lab) or in atmospheres ( 10^-20, 10^-13 to 10^-15, 10^-12 to 10^-15 ) source:http://hypertextbook.com/physics/matter/pre ssure/
The real problem is that you still need a plasma facing surface and to generate a magnetic field. All that mass is expensive to get to the moon, and the constraint on the physical size of the magnets (bigger is more expensive) and the need to protect them from the plasma would result in a very similar vessel being constructed on the moon. So there would be very little direct benefit. There is the remote possibility of using the exotic D-He3 fusion reaction - one that is much more difficult to create, but that is essentially neutron free. Since He3 is only found in any concentration in the surface of the moon where it is deposited by the solar wind.

Re:Would it be simpler in natural vacuum?

[Oddly_Drac]

"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?"

And which state gets the massive influx of cash and jobs? Seriously, you don't seem to understand the game.

Don't be hasty.

[Mukaikubo]

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.

Solar power is still vastly underutilized

[MarkEst1973]

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.

Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized

[sql*kitten]

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:Solar power is still vastly underutilized

[Remlik]

Don't be so quick with the black helicopter theorys about oil companies lobbying against distributed solar power. Fact is less than 25% of all oil is consumed to fuel our cars and power our homes. The other 75% goes directly to manufacturing, and thus demand will not be significantly reduced by simply adding solar.

Second, the technological challanges are minimal. We have solar panels today nearing the theoretical maximum effeciecy of the substrate used to convert it. No they are not cheap and that is the only restriction to distributed power. No one can afford it up front, and it could take 20 or more years to pay for itself (not including maintaince or replacment costs). On top of that some areas (like oh I dunno where i live in MN) are not Optimal for solar power production. Up here it could take more than 50 years to make my money back on the initial investment...course the panels are only rated for 30 years use.

FUD is fun, and everyone likes to hear about how big bad corps are ruining the world and how its all the presidents fault because he has money invested in oil but the fact of the matter is right now oil is cheaper and easier. Until that changes, you will NOT see solar. Oh and one more thing..DO NOT RAISE MY DAMN TAXES TO SUBSIDIZE SOLAR FOR THE WORLD. Instead, give the money in grants to schools and companies to make the tech affordable/better.

Nuff

Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized

[MarkEst1973]

1. No tin-foil hat thinking in my post. That fact is that there are many billions of dollars tied up in coal/oil power plants. The owners of these would not want distributed solar power generating the bulk of the electricity for the people. And to be fair to the "evil corporations", lots and lots of jobs are created with those billions of invested dollars in these plants. These are natural incentives to lobby against distributed solar power.

2. The technological challenges are not "minimal" if we've nearly tapped out how far our solar materials can go. If we've reached the peak of what it can do, then the cost per kW of electricty if way too high. The huge technological challenge of boosting the efficiency of solar panels while simultaneously bringing down the price is a requirement before any advances in this field can be made. Like you said, it may take many years for a solar investment on my house to pay off. That would need to change before I did it, and I'm part of the masses.

3. Your last paragraph is entirely FUD. I never blamed anything on Bush or cronyism, nor did I allude to raising taxes to subsidize solar research.

I do agree with you that oil/coal powerplants are currently the easiest and cheapest way to generated kilowatts. That's why it's still producing the bulk of our electricity. NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) prevents greater use of nuclear power in the U.S. In this single instance, the U.S. can learn a lot from France (I can't believe I actually said that...), a country where 80%+ of the power is generated by nukes.

Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized

[Phanatic1a]

Fact is less than 25% of all oil is consumed to fuel our cars and power our homes.

FSVO 'fact.'

In the real world, upwards of 40% of a given barrel of oil ends up as gasoline, and maybe up to 60%. Gasoline. That's used in cars, military vehicles, and small planes. It's not used to power or heat our homes.

The other 75% goes directly to manufacturing, and thus demand will not be significantly reduced by simply adding solar.

Wrong. Plastics and other manufacturing concerns consume the minority of each barrel of crude. Now, granted, if we stop using the lighter fractions of crude to drive our cars, that doesn't mean we can magically turn the whole barrel into heavier stuff suitable for plastics feedstocks, but your numbers are way off.

We have solar panels today nearing the theoretical maximum effeciecy of the substrate used to convert it.

Yeah, and? Next step is to make them cheaper. Or more durable, which basically amounts to the same thing.

Besides, we've already got the technology to move beyond fossil fuels, it's as safe or safer than burning coal, pollutes a helluva lot less, and has enough fuel sitting around to last us practically forever: fission. The only thing lacking is the political will, and the only problem is that people are stupid.

Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized

[bullitB]

In the real world, upwards of 40% of a given barrel of oil ends up as gasoline, and maybe up to 60%. Gasoline.

Firstly, grandparent's point stands. A huge amount of oil is used for stuff other than gasoline. Furthermore, a lot of that gasoline does stuff other than fueling cars and homes, so, yeah, 25% sounds reasonable. We have no replacement for making plastics, nor for powering the turbines in jets, nor making asphalt. The point here is that even if we all stopped driving petrol-powered cars and switched to electric cars powered by big fusion generators, the oil industry wouldn't disappear; the stuff still has lots of uses.

Besides, we've already got the technology to move beyond fossil fuels, it's as safe or safer than burning coal, pollutes a helluva lot less, and has enough fuel sitting around to last us practically forever: fission. The only thing lacking is the political will, and the only problem is that people are stupid.

I'm a proponent of fission power. I know it's pollution-free, the reactors are vastly safer than any other method out there, and the anti-nuke crowd is very much to blame for a continued reliance on coal. However, fission is not an end-all solution. Uranium is not a limitless resource and reactor-safety, while not as critical as some have made it out to be, is an issue that needs to be regulated, which adds to inefficiency.

It's my personal belief that until we get fusion working, someone ought to do a re-branding effort on fission. Resell it to the public as "SafePower(TM)". Yes, with a small PR-manuver nuclear power could once again be our answer. The money from the t-shirt sales from SafePower(TM) would go to fusion research.

Re:Solar power is still vastly underutilized

[Urkki]

• I'm a proponent of fission power. I know it's pollution-free, the reactors are vastly safer than any other method out there, and the anti-nuke crowd is very much to blame for a continued reliance on coal. However, fission is not an end-all solution. Uranium is not a limitless resource and reactor-safety, while not as critical as some have made it out to be, is an issue that needs to be regulated, which adds to inefficiency.

Check out breeder reactors. They can solve a lot of problems, including availability of fuel, and waste-disposal. Only real show-stopper is that it's hard to develop a breeder cycle that doesn't produce easy bomb material..

Re:The UN model?

[R.Caley]

Just look at the International Space Station for another example. In my mind, this project has unlimited potential.

The ISS never had any potential. It was a PR stunt for NASA who needed an excuse for keeping the shuttle flying, an excuse to pump money into the former SU for the white house, and the other `parnters' just saw free money for building bits of high-tech white elephant.

As an example of an international project which does produce results, look at CERN.

Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil wells

[Paul Crowley]

"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.

How much more energy do we need?

[bigberk]

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:How much more energy do we need?

[FlyingOrca]

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. :-/

Re:How much more energy do we need?

[michael_cain]

I am becoming more skeptical as time passes about the need to pursue new power sources... We already generate enough power world-wide.

The "wealth" of a country -- per-capita GDP -- is tied rather closely to the amount of energy it can generate and apply. Western Europe and Japan are roughly the baseline for efficiency -- their per-capita GDP is about the same as the US, but they use about half as much energy. Western Europe and Japan have some clear geographic advantages compared to the US and Canada that makes it easier for them to be more energy-efficient. Hong Kong is pretty much at the extreme of efficiency for a rich "country", using only about one-quarter the per-capita energy of the US. But we can't all be Hong Kong -- someone has to grow crops and refine metals and all the other energy-intense activities a developed economy requires.

At least four billion people on this planet live in poverty -- very low per-capita GDP. For the economies in which they live to become richer, they will have to consume more energy. For example, look at the increases in energy consumption in China over the last ten or fifteen years as their economy has boomed. Energy consumption is not up because they got richer -- they got richer because they increased their energy consumption (and hence the goods and services produced per person). We produce enough energy worldwide ONLY if you're willing to tell those people that they and their children will have to be poor forever.

Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...

[jabberjaw]

There is a reason that your opinion is unpopular. It is wrong.

It produces even more radioctive waste than fission, because you have to transform the all the neutreons and other radiation coming out from the reaction, to heat.

I strongly suggest that you read more about nuclear fusion.

The number one problem of humanity is that we are consuming too much natural resources. The availability of a power-source like fusion would increase our consumption even more instead of reducing it.

Why would it not reduce our consumption of resources? When fusion is realised, less coal, oil and natural gas would be required to produce power.

Please everybody stop dreaming of fusion and use your resources (intellectual and monetary) on techonlogies like solar power, ....

I put my intellectual and monetary backing behind nuclear fusion, solar power does not spark my interest as I find that too much energy is reflected. This is a personal opinion of my own.

Re:Fusion = Waste of Money, Time, etc

[k98sven]

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.

A bit of clarification...

[Anonymous Coward]

1.) RTFA: FIRE is one of many fusion research projects in the U.S. This article gives the impression that we just 'gave up' on this whole crazy fusion thing. This is far from true...

2.) Fusion is NOT LIKE IN SPIDERMAN 2. Go read this: Fusion Basics at PPPL

3.) ITER is the next step towards a steady state or 'burning' plasma. This is (obviously) a critical part of building a production-class fusion reactor.

- Justin

Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...

[Pius II.]

- the materials used for the fusion reactor are supposed to have a halflife of about 100 years, whereas the fission products have halflives in the 10,000 year range. Also, current designs are based on a lithium blanket "shielding" the reactor walls, at the same time producing new tritium for fueling the reaction.

- lithium as fusion fuel is available in abundance, unlike fossil fuels.

- technologies like solar power have their own, hidden costs, e.g. the energy cost of creating the cells. Also, for many areas of the world, the intensity of solar radiation is simply too low.
Other techniques may be viable in those regions (wind power), but these, again, have their own pitfalls (noise, effects on wildlife, high servicing costs).

Dream of fusion power?

[tod_miller]

I think the reality of fusion power is not getting any closer, whereas the dream would seem to have already arrived, taken off it's shoes and asked whats for dinner.

I just hope fusion engineers/scientists are not like computer programmers (me included).

*Boom*

Aaah I see, yep, yep, yep, thought so, no no problem, can we schedule a test for next week? Yep, gimme a minute i'll check the calculations...

*Bigger Boom*

Ooooh, mmmm mmm, yep, no - that's good, we are doing something right, that was definately different, lets hope we don't get a BlackHoleException, yeah, I'd throw a try/catch around that whole nasty business there... *vague pointing*

*fading image of old tv screen switching off*

*smacks head* d'oh! Oh well at least the moon base survived...

The sad state of American science

[yog]

The U.S. was once the mecca of science in the world. Students flocked here from many other countries to learn from the best teachers and to work in the best facilities. Great experiments were conducted into the nature of matter at places like the Berkeley physics lab, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. Pioneering visionaries planned, funded, and executed great projects like the manned landings on the Moon. Nuclear energy was exploited, with all its pros and cons.

Today, the U.S. has retreated from its leadership role and now tries to participate in science on the cheap, by roping in questionable allies such as France and China to help pay for experiments such as ITER that once would have been a purely American sandbox. The already meagre space budget has been sapped by an irrelevant and compromised space station and the oversold space shuttle. The president has barred the funding of promising biological research using embryonic stem cells, thus driving stem cell researchers to other countries to continue their work, and communities across the country are forcing schools to teach "creationism" in biology courses. School kids avoid hard subjects like science and foreign graduate students in the sciences are now the majority--and will they want to stay after they graduate?

In my opinion, the U.S. should turn its attention to science once again and realize that it is in a race with Europe and east Asia to regain and retain the critical lead in science and technological development. The nationstates and alliances of nations which stay focused on scientific achievement will be the economic leaders of the 21st century, while the lazy others will fall behind and become irrelevant.

Re:Exploiting the sun

[aldoman]

Because as much as the environmentalists love to peddle the idea it would only take a few square miles to supply the planet, it's just not true in theory.

For one it's extremely expensive to build miles of solar panels. Not only that, the technology is improving all the time - we probably had something like 2.5% efficiency 15 years ago, now we have 10-15% and we'll be up into the low 20's hopefully soon.

To add to all that, the problem of getting the supply anywhere is very hard. You can produce megawatts of the stuff, but it's all coming out as low voltage DC when everyone needs high voltage AC. That means you need huge inverters, which are very inefficient.

Not only that, they only produce when the sun is shining. Maybe in CA this is ok as power demands are exceedingly high with the amount of air con in the daytime.

Another important question is whether the national grid could handle the amount of fluctuations in supply that a solar grid produces - one moment you'll have 1.2MW, next moment you'll have 0.9MW as a cloud passes over - this presents a huge problem for the grid as it's very hard to quickly adjust the major producers (coal, and to some degree fission) to cope with that supply problem.

the ironry? president's support?

[RevAaron]

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.

Princeton

[Sam Nitzberg]

There is a hot fusion research facility in Princeton, NJ. My understanding is that the facility has done good work since its inception.

I would hate to see such efforts scrubbed. Whatever happens with fusion research, I would like to see such teams and facilities continue to advance their work and contribute towards their research.

Sam Nitzberg

Re:We already have sustainable nuclear fusion

[JBMcB]

Solar energy is not reliable, anything less than clear sky and the system isn't running efficently. Photovoltaic energy has expensive delicate solar panels you have to protect. Photothermal has huge arrays of mirrors you have to maintain and protect. Unless you are in a desert or Arizona there's not much hope for solar.

Geothermal is great as long as you live near a volcano or hot springs. Geothermal heat pumps work great, though expensive.

Tidal and wind farms kill fish and birds respectively, so you have Audobon, Greenspeace, etc etc after you.

What makes you think evildoers won't own any of these alternative energy sources? They have a vested interest in maintaining their position in the energy market, and if people swing towards alternative energy they are going to be involved.

They should build it in...

[arakon]

Canada, or the Sahara Desert.

WAY out in the middle of the sticks.

That way if it goes boom, not as many people need to translocate. If they get it working, Canada could definately benefit from the power sales.

It just wouldn't work that well here in the US. Too many shady businesses and Unions to ever even get the project off the ground.

Re:They should build it in...

[sql*kitten]

That way if it goes boom, not as many people need to translocate.

Fusion reactors don't explode. The fusion reaction itself is extremely delicate. If anything goes wrong, it simply stops. Sure you now have some hot plasma/gas, but not very much, and it'll cool by itself if left alone. Remember that your reactor is wrapped in cooling systems anyway, since that's how you get the power out of it (at least until we recover sufficient He3 that the power can be extracted magnetically).

Re:They should build it in...

[Jodka]

"Fusion reactors don't explode. The fusion reaction itself is extremely delicate. If anything goes wrong, it simply stops."

Actually, there is a small likelihood that the fusion reactor goes out of control and creates a growing magnetic vortex which becomes powerful enough to consume an entire city. However, I expect it would be possible to prevent the reaction from going out of control by using an eight-armed non-ferrous mechanical exoskeleton.

Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we

[mwood]

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."

Build your own!

[david.given]

Magnetic containment fusion isn't the only way of doing it. Electrostatic containment fusion works very nicely indeed, and you can build one in your garage quite easily (for given values of easily; a skilled TV repairman could do it). Alas, the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor can't really be scaled up and would appear to have theoretical problems that prevent it reaching break-even, but hot damn, you can fuse hydrogen on your kitchen table. Watch out for those neutrons.

More information, including plans, is available at Fusor.net.

Re:We already have sustainable nuclear fusion

[Idarubicin]

Solar energy is not reliable, anything less than clear sky and the system isn't running efficently. Photovoltaic energy has expensive delicate solar panels you have to protect. Photothermal has huge arrays of mirrors you have to maintain and protect. Unless you are in a desert or Arizona there's not much hope for solar.

On the other hand, solar tends to provide you with electricity when you really need it. Electricity demand goes up during the day and falls roughly with the sun. Demand is highest in the summer--witness last year's blackout--because millions of people are running air conditioners on sunny days.

Yeah, solar is too expensive right now, except for certain niche markets. (My grandparents' cottage actually runs on photovoltaic panels, because it would cost about thirty grand to connect them to the grid.) It's rather a chicken and egg problem--solar panels will get cheaper when people buy more panels, but people won't buy more panels until they get cheaper. Perhaps this is someplace where government subsidies (*gasp*) might be appropriate?

Arguing that photovoltaic panels are delicate is a bit of a red herring. Yes, I suppose they're moderately fragile, but so what? We have windows on our houses. We cover entire skyscrapers in glass. You might have to provide some cover for a panel array in the event of large hail, but beyond that I wouldn't be too worried. There's the added benefit of modularity. If I throw a rock at a panel, or even drive a truck into the edge of an array, I only take out a very small fraction of the total area. If one panel is damaged, it's the work of an hour for a guy to drive out and slap a new panel in place, and generation from the rest of the site stays up. Not only that, but you get an automatic twelve or so hours of downtime at night every night to do maintenance work.

What makes you think evildoers won't own any of these alternative energy sources? They have a vested interest in maintaining their position in the energy market, and if people swing towards alternative energy they are going to be involved.

Well yes--if the evildoers in question are the big energy companies, they will be involved, and they'll probably try to manipulate energy markets as they always have (*waves at Ken Lay*). With respect to evildoers in the Middle East, it's much more difficult to ship PV generated electricity here from Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Even if OPEC decides to build solar plants in Arizona, they're going to be working in U.S. territory under U.S. law. Mexico hasn't threatened to invade Texas for quite a while now, and it's fairly unlikely that California will try to annex Nevada. The region is stable, and nobody will have to drop any more bombs.

I completely agree that solar power isn't some sort of magic bullet that will solve all of our energy problems. No doubt the future will have a mix of energy sources, in the same way as we do now. It isn't anywhere near valid to write off solar because it isn't appropriate for all energy needs.

Coal Fire Is Worse

[ink]

Third and last, people in EUrope have good reason to be wary of nuclear power. Have you seen and felt the effects of a big nuclear accident? most of Europe did, they KNOW what they fear, a nuclear accident is not an unlikely theoretical possibility, it has becoem reality in a rather prominent way already.

Regardless, even accounting for all the tragic deaths from CHernobyl, EUrope (FRance, in particular) still has cleaner power than the primary power source in AMerica. I would gladly trade the coal fire plant nearby for a nuclear plant; the waste is much easier to contain, even if it is more dangerous. Fusion reactors would be much better, of course -- but many malign nuclear power and install designs that are much more harmful to the environment. Also, "clean" natural gas power plants don't seem so clean when we have to go to war to fuel them.

Summary: Many, many, many more people have died for non-nuclear power supplies, than in nuclear disasters. The environment has been much more damaged by non-nuclear power supplies as well.

World electricity consumption vs solar

[Morgaine]

A few relevant ballpark figures might help the discussion:

World electricity consumption circa 2001: under 14 trillion KWh (14 x 10^12)

Max solar energy typically falling on a square metre of land: 1 KWh

Minimum area of land needed to supply world demand at 100% conversion: 14 million Km^2, or 14 solar farms of 1,000 x 1,000 Km each.

Before anyone gets carried away, this doesn't lead directly to a plan for converting the world to solar by siting 14 farms in the world's deserts. :-) [For a start, 100% conversion efficiency isn't even theoretically possible.] However, on a smaller national scale, there's no doubt that there is a lot of energy available in sunlight.

What about the fusion wastes?

[PGillingwater]

I'm shocked and surprised that no-one has even begun to consider the effects of fusion waste products, specifically Di-Hydrogen Monoxide. This substance has killed millions of people in the last hundred or so years, yet no one seems to DO anything about it.

According to the DHMO FAQ, this lethal substance is responsible for:

• Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
  
• Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
  
• Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
  
• DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
  
• Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
  
• Contributes to soil erosion.
  
• Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
  
• Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
  
• Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
  
• Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
  
• Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
  
• Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
  

Please do your part in warning your friends of this dangerous substance.

how clean is fusion power?

[peter303]

There is some debate about potential fusion accidents and radiactive byproducts in a fairly balanced article here. I remember similar claims about "cheap and clean" fission energy in the 1950s which turned out to be neither in practice. I'm not a Luddite, but we do have to anticipate problems.

Re:how clean is fusion power?

[Strontium-90]

Yes, there is the potential for accidents at a fusion power plant, but the scale of the damage/danger is much less than you're probably thinking. The article you linked mentions tritium leaks, lithium fires, and release of "magnetic energy". Tritium leaks can easily be contained if the building is properly designed. Lithium fires would damage the reactor, but not result in danger to the surrounding community. As for the "accidental release of magnetic energy," I can only assume they're talking about what happens when a plasma dies abruptly. If I remember correctly, the sudden absence of the plasma's magnetic field causes the tokomak to "jump" and can potentially cause electrical damage. So this would also only affect the reactor and not the surrounding community.

Basically, the difference (safety-wise) between fission and fusion is that fission is a runaway process, whereas fusion requires a large amount of energy/control/effort to keep it going. The easiest way to stop a fusion reaction is to cut off its fuel. A fusion reactor requires constant addition of deuterium/tritium to keep the reaction going. By simply cutting off the source of fuel, the reaction would naturally stop. You don't have to worry about the power plant exploding or having a nuclear meltdown when dealing with fusion.

Re:Exploiting the sun

[Baki]

Therefore exploiting solar energy must go hand in hand with introducing hydrogen as "fuel", that is as a means to store the energy retrieved from the sun.

Use solar energy to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen, which can be done by a number of means. Solar cells is one one, but solar power can also be used in huge turbines instead (more efficient) to generate AC current. In either way the electricity can be used in the neighbourhood directly, and be used for electrolysis for large scale use and storage.

There are empty areas enough (deserts come to mind, especially deserts that are quite near seas and oceans) that can be used. Yes it will require huge investments (to transport the water to the dry and sunny areas for example) but the oil industry also has required an enormous infrastructure (refineries, oil tankers) and wasn't built overnight. It is doable and necessary, and at some time one must start to invest in it for the long term.

There will be no fusion power

[b-baggins]

What makes you think we'll ever have fusion power? Do you honestly think that environmentalists will EVER approve the construction of a power plant that produces high-energy neutrons as a byproduct and can turn into a nuclear bomb in a runaway reaction?

The hurdles for fusion power are not technical, they're social.

Re:There will be no fusion power

[b-baggins]

Yeah, and pebble bed fission reactors can't melt down either. Do you see any of them being built?

Um, you are aware that high-energy neutrons CREATE radioactive isotopes, right? You block them by letting them slam into stuff (usually water, where they make Deuterium and Tritium and lots of other fun isotopes from the dissolved salts and organics in the water).

ANY time you're dealing with nuclear reactions, you're going to get nuclear isotopes and radioactive waste. It's the nature of the beast, and environmentalists will be quick to point this out, and the nuclear hysteria that runs rampant in our society will ensure that no fusion reactor ever gets built in the U.S.

Cold fusion works fine

[rlglende]

The high-energy guys don't want to admit this, and very little mainstream academic research has been done.

However, a lot of professor emeritii have been working on it. The papers don't report affiliations.

There are good reviews available via Google, convincing to all but the seriously ideological.

Lew

Who's the pettiest?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is that the Cadarache site HAD been voted to be the place, but after France decided not to send any troops in Irak, the US suddenly changed their mind in favor of the japanese site (oh, just after japan sent troops...)

I was interested in fusion power for a school work with a friend, and I know that because this friend of mine has a relative who is project leader on tore-supra, in cadarache, and they were quite angry with such petty behavior...

Re:Exploiting the sun

[EllisDees]

>For one it's extremely expensive to build miles of solar panels. Not only that, the technology is improving all the time - we probably had something like 2.5% efficiency 15 years ago, now we have 10-15% and we'll be up into the low 20's hopefully soon.

Actually, it looks like it could be 50% soon..

>To add to all that, the problem of getting the supply anywhere is very hard. You can produce megawatts of the stuff, but it's all coming out as low voltage DC when everyone needs high voltage AC. That means you need huge inverters, which are very inefficient.

True, especially in the context of the parent post, but if everyone had these high-efficiency solar cells mounted on their roofs it would be less a problem.

Re:Exploiting the sun

[danharan]

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.

Cold Fusion

[absurdist]

Interesting that the DOE is cancelling the FIRE program only a couple of months after finally deciding a review of the substantial research in the past decade into cold fusion. (And yes, before you flame me or accuse me of hitting the crack pipe, look it up - there's been some very interesting research going on outside of the US.) And for the tinfoil hat brigade, the fact that the editor/publisher of Infinite Energy magazine was recently found murdered adds just the right dash of conspiracy.

Re:Exploiting the sun

[ChrisMaple]

Silicon photovoltaics (solar cells) have been at about 23% efficiency (for premium grade devices) for more than 30 years. This is a theoretical limitation of silicon and they're not going to get significantly better by themselves. The much more expensive gallium-arsenide, or combined silicon gallium-arsenide devices get into the 30s.

Individual cells are low voltage DC, but they are easily combined in series to obtain higher voltages. DC is superior for transmission. Inverters can be very efficient, 90% would be considered bad efficiency at megawatt power levels.

It is stalled because of the US

[johannesg]

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.

Fusion? Still got the Horse and Oxen !

[B_SharpC]

Fusion free energy will just make you more fat and lazy. The horse and oxen will keep you fit and trim. :-)

A different Hobbes, sort of...

[FlyingOrca]

...given that Hobbes the tiger was named for Thomas Hobbes, in the same way that Calvin was named for John Calvin.

I hope you know what I'm on about, because if I have to explain about the best comic strip in history, I'll know I've suddenly become much older than I thought I was. Cheers!

FIRE is not the US's sole fusion program

[daveschroeder]

Huge misconceptions seem to abound here. FIRE does not represent the whole of US fusion research. There are dozens of other projects and laboratories around the country, most in academia and the national labs.

$2M/year is just for this ONE project.

The summary is extremely poorly written, and apparently the submitter thinks that the US is "canceling" all of its fusion programs, when in reality, ONE project of many is being canceled. The whole reason FIRE came about is because the US pulled out of ITER. Now we're back in, and FIRE could serve as a backup project potentially, but ITER is the focus in this particular line of research. But there are still many, many federally funded fusion research programs, projects, and laboratories around the US! We've spent $5 billion on projects like the National Ignition Facility (NIF) alone (only to be crucified by the Left...I guess you can't win).

Jeez. Wake the fuck up, or at least learn something.

Re:Shut up liberal.

[meadowsp]

The people of Iraq declared war on you on September 11th 2001?

References please.

Re:Shut up liberal.

[WhiteWolf666]

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.

Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we

[sean23007]

Well, seeing as how I'm not in charge of any "energy" (oil) companies, it is not my responsibility to make the decision. But I can point out that in the last year Exxon Mobil's profits increased by 39-40% due to decreasing gas prices. "Decreasing gas prices?" I hear you asking. Well, they're not decreasing in price at the pump, just at the barrel. These companies are now paying what they used to pay for oil, a couple of years ago, but those decreased prices have not led to consumer gas prices returning to normal levels. ...

Let me reiterate. Their profits went up 40% in a year. They're making a killing.

Re:Yeah,"Energy companies" that own lots of oil we

[mwood]

Point that out to your representatives in Congress. Last time gas prices started zooming up, they zoomed right back down again, as if by magic, when Congress started making noises about finding out why.

For thoroughness, I should point out that "profits are up 40%" needs some context. If ExxonMobil earned $100 last year and $140 this year (out of umpty-ump billion dollars of revenue) then profits are up 40% but they only made enough more to throw a pizza party for the Directors. They *could* have been taking unusually low profits to hold pump prices down and prevent massive interest in (say) hydrogen, thinking they'd make it up again when their costs decreased.

If your grocer was making 1% of sales last year (and he'd be thrilled to get that much) and this year is making a killing at 1.4% of sales, his profit is up 40% too, but in context, some days it must be hard for him to remember why he opens the doors at all.

This Demonstrates The US Energy Priorities

[Long-EZ]

Energy is such a fundamentally important aspect of the US economy, yet the solutions seem restricted to digging up coal and drilling oil wells. Burning carbon based fuel was OK for the short haul, but there are a lot of bad consequences in the long term that are being ignored. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if anyone has a better theory than, "powerful oil companies don't want better energy sources", I'd sure like to hear it. I think the problem is, technology based solutions, especially renewable energy solutions, are difficult to monopolize and therefore difficult to control for profit. Anyone up for an open source energy solution?

Energy is so important that the US should richly fund a US fusion initiative AND the international initiative. As it is, the basic science looks promising, and attainable in 20-50 years if we were serious, but all we have now is the international fusion project, and they've been arguing for YEARS over where to build it. All politics, no science.

The US should also be promoting solar power. Yeah, it's diffuse, but it can make a HUGE difference in US energy imports and balance of trade. And solar power could greatly benefit from much larger scale. Imagine highly automated factories cranking out cheap and easy-to-use click-together solar panels for every roof surface. Every structure needs a roof, why not generate power at the same time?

And what about electric cars? The GM EV1 (aka Impact) was VERY popular with the people who leased them, but they were withdrawn by GM when they announced their long term hydrogen powered car initiative. To those who want cleaner and more efficient cars that don't require foreign oil, this looks like a decision to pacify people while cozying up to Big Oil, when a very good solution exists now.

The planet is going to run out of oil someday, and fairly soon given the rapid increase in consumption. We should be planning for that, and doing the research now, but we aren't. The US is in a position to lead in this initiative, but chooses to wait until the oil crisis is upon us, and then try to act. It's going to get very ugly within a decade or two. And that's frustrating when we could have solar power and very good electric cars today, and fusion power in 30 years.

I'm still trying to decide how much of the planet's energy problems are caused by plain old human short sightedness, and how much is Enron-style corporate greed and manipulation.

Cheaper energy means more cleanups can be done.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

By concentrating only on the current uses of energy, you're making the same mistake as the early IBM executives who thought only ten computers would ever be needed - because that's how many it would take to do as much arithmetic as all the accountants in the world.

Completely missing the fact that this was all the arithmetic that was done because it was SO EXPENSIVE to do arithmetic, making other useful applications impractical. Cutting the cost of computation enabled an amazing range of additional, useful (or fun) things. (It now takes more arithmetic than the annual computation of that world full of accountants just to refresh my screen. Now think about DOOM III. B-) )

The same is true for energy.

For stareters, there's a WHOLE LOT of old trash stored in landfills and other disposal sites. Some if it is way toxic. Some is radioactive, and some of that is burning its way out of its containers and contaminating the ground water. Meanwhile, though recycling is making some progress, we're mining more minerals to make new materials - because it's often much less expensive to do it that way.

With cheaper energy for separating and purifying the components of used materials for reuse, the balance shifts more toward recycling.

In the extreme limit, with abundant nearly-free energy, you can vaporize the entrire trash stream and run it through a mass spectrometer, separating it by element and isotope. Use the carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, plus still more energy, to feed your hydroponic farm. Use the purified metals and other elements in lieu of mining and refining more, for manufacturing feedstocks. Sort out the useful radioactives for devices that need them (i.e. smoke detectors), feed the NON-useful ones into nuclear processes that convert them to something more useful or less dangerous. Or just contain them (which you can do better when they're pure rather than a witches-brew) until they change to something more useful on their own, then separate it out again.

Abundant cheap energy is enormously enabling.

Re:Cheaper energy means more cleanups can be done.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

With cheaper energy for separating and purifying the components of used materials for reuse, the balance shifts more toward recycling.

Why? Won't extracting new resources get the same benefit?

They will receive some benefit. But a lesser one. Even an unlimited amount of free energy won't get you a mineral if the ore supply is actually all used up, or pay other costs such as having to move cities, strip-mine parks, or go fifty miles deep to reach the reserves that are still there.

Then there's the disposal costs - both of the mine tailings and other unwanted products of purification, and the material that you didn't recycle. Both those costs go away (replaced by the cost of the recycling technology) when you recycle old materials rather than digging up new.

Make the cost of recycling lower and more raw materials achieve crossover, where it's cheaper to recycle than mine (at least for some major fraction of the demand). Given that energy is the main cost of automated recycling and a disproportionately smaller fraction of the cost of primary resource production, I expect that progressively cheaper energy will mean progressively more materials reach crossover.

It's not the end of Nuclear Fusion

[NCFlipper]

You know, ITER isn't the only other fusion programme going on. ITER follows on from, in particular, the JET programme based at Culham (near Oxford, England). IIRC the technology is based around a toroidal confinement (tokomak?) design.

ITER was proposed years ago. The problem, for a long time, has been that America didn't want to be involved, especially if ITER was not built in the States. Hence the FIRE programme is partly a case of America going it alone, and in that sense its cancellation is a good thing. ITER needs the involvement of all of the science community, inclusive of Japan, Europe, Canada and the States (forgive me if I've forgotten other major players, these were the ones I remembered without consulting a reference). Such expensive projects will suffer from dividing the funding into separate efforts: look at Fermilab which competes with CERN, and there is evidence that if both continue to go it alone, the next (much larger) accelerators may never be built.

And don't go thinking that that's the end of American innovation in nuclear fusion. There is other research being carried out into alternatives to the toroidal confinement design. At the very least there is the work on Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) being carried out at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL - sorry about all the acronyms). This project involves the compression of tritium pellets using several high-energy lasers. The approach is radically different from the work at ITER/FIRE. Funding of such a project makes a lot more sense than funding FIRE; instead of spending money duplicating research, the money goes towards funding a diversity of research. Evolution of the best technology happens faster that way.

So to me the future still looks promising. Nuclear fusion is a technology that needs to be shared worldwide, and before more countries decide that burning yet more fossil fuels is a more accessible way of generating electricity. More prudent use of the financial resources available to develop Fusion can only be a good thing.