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..."
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...
-- ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets.
--
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
BabyDave
·
· Score: 5, Funny
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.
by
ch-chuck
·
· Score: 5, Funny
The Union Aerospace Corporation could probably handle a moon research facility with no problem.
Re:Put it on the Moon.
by
Paradigm+Lost
·
· Score: 5, Funny
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?!!
-- -Dead Lesbian Witches! Think about it!
Good news in a way
by
pt99par
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think that this may get fusion closer becouse now the US can put more money into the international project instead of its own. One good project instead of two half good projects.
Re:Good news in a way
by
Dr.+Hok
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Maybe they found out that it wouldn't be good for national security if the US were in control?
-- Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
Re:Good news in a way
by
Daniel+Dvorkin
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
We could easily fund FIRE, our share of ITER, and a couple of other programs as well. Which is what we should be doing, because there's no guarantee that any one approach is the right one. Why do people always think there's going to be one magic bullet?
They're talking about $5 billion, total, to build ITER. That's miniscule money compared to what we're throwing away on fighting in a certain country known for its oil...
-- The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Good news in a way
by
jspaleta
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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.
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.
-- --sig fault--
Possible ITER sites
by
BubbaThePirate
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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.
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".
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.
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
Fusion has been "15-20 years away" for something like 30 years now, hasn't it? If it's not something, it's something else. Meanwhile, we have a massive fusion plant in the center of the solar system that's been operating maintenance free for eons and we're barely even exploiting it.
-- You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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.
--
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
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:Vested Interests
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It seems to me that fusion research in the US is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that the Whitehouse is full of people with millions of dollars invested in oil companies.
You might be right, but remember there's really no such thing as an oil company. There are only energy companies. The smart ones recognize that, the dumb ones think it's all about oil. No-one wants oil. What they want is motive power.
Also remember that not much oil goes into power stations - mostly they're natural gas, coal nuclear, hydro, etc. Oil ends up in automobiles of one sort or another. Pitch it to Bush that Texas can provide all the oil the US needs and fusion will supply the rest and he can get the US out of the Middle East for good (barring support for Israel of course), and he'll jump at the chance, I reckon.
Solar power is still vastly underutilized
by
MarkEst1973
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I was recently reading about hybrid cars that would be able to sell their excess electricity back to the power grid. Likewise for solar panels on homes. The energy generated would be used to heat water and whatnot, then the rest feeds back into the grid, causing the power meter to run backwards a bit and reduce your bill.
Like distributed computing, I think distributed power generation would work amazingly well. If there were millions and millions of homes generating power alongside our power plants (nukes, not dirty fossil fuel plants), we could achieve energy independence from foreign nations, reduce fossil fuel dependence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil/coal buring powerplants.
The challenges are difficult to overcome, however.
The big oil and gas companies, of course, would lobby against any distributed power generation. I'm sure they don't want millions of solar powered homes. There is no money in it for them.
Solar panels are, I think, relatively inefficient and expensive. Their efficacy would need to be boosted and the price would have to go down.
I can see a day, though, when everyone is generating everyone's power through distributed generation. It's cheaper, greener, and it just makes sense... which is probably why it will never happen.
Re:This might be an unpopular opinion here ...
by
jabberjaw
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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.
A bit of clarification...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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...
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
The sad state of American science
by
yog
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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.
--
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
meadowsp
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The people of Iraq declared war on you on September 11th 2001?
References please.
Re:Shut up liberal.
by
WhiteWolf666
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Don't be so dense.
Iraq != Taliban, or Al-Qaeda.
I agree with the war in Iraq, however, for entire different reasons.
Get your shit straight, and then it will make more sense.
U.S. has maintained a virtual occupation (containment) of Iraq since Desert Storm 1. We had no exit strategy.
We could have either a) left the area, pulled out our planes, and let Saddam did as he wanted, b) invaded, and force regime change, or c) maintain the SQ, shooting SAM sites, and occasionally have a plane shot down by Saddam's troops.
My opinion, B) was the best idea.
Unfortunately, we didn't consult the international community, we decided to pin it on WMD, we didn't bother to try and force Saddam out of power, and we still maintain that regime change was a fiction necessitated by WMD.
Saddam was a complete asshole, but our diplomatic efforts surrounding his removal were beyond terrible.
Anyways, these people (Iraqs) did not declare war on us. Infact, they never declared war on anyways.
Their autocratic fascist dictator declared war on Kuwait, and we only just now decided to end his rule.
A Comedy of Errors.
-- WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Slashdot Mirror
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
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
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.
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.
--sig fault--
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.
-- "I'm not a religious man, but if you're up there, save me Superman..."
The fact that they are having one giant argument about where to put this thing, to the extent that it halted the process, is pathetic and shows how petty the countries involved are. It is obvious that they are not interested in the science and simply want to be able to say "look what we have".
Fusion has been "15-20 years away" for something like 30 years now, hasn't it? If it's not something, it's something else. Meanwhile, we have a massive fusion plant in the center of the solar system that's been operating maintenance free for eons and we're barely even exploiting it.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
The people of Iraq declared war on you on September 11th 2001?
References please.
Don't be so dense.
Iraq != Taliban, or Al-Qaeda.
I agree with the war in Iraq, however, for entire different reasons.
Get your shit straight, and then it will make more sense.
U.S. has maintained a virtual occupation (containment) of Iraq since Desert Storm 1. We had no exit strategy.
We could have either a) left the area, pulled out our planes, and let Saddam did as he wanted, b) invaded, and force regime change, or c) maintain the SQ, shooting SAM sites, and occasionally have a plane shot down by Saddam's troops.
My opinion, B) was the best idea.
Unfortunately, we didn't consult the international community, we decided to pin it on WMD, we didn't bother to try and force Saddam out of power, and we still maintain that regime change was a fiction necessitated by WMD.
Saddam was a complete asshole, but our diplomatic efforts surrounding his removal were beyond terrible.
Anyways, these people (Iraqs) did not declare war on us. Infact, they never declared war on anyways.
Their autocratic fascist dictator declared war on Kuwait, and we only just now decided to end his rule.
A Comedy of Errors.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell