Slashdot Mirror
EU Intent on Hosting International Fusion Reactor
Raunch writes "The BBC says that EU is determined to be one of the sites that host the multi-billion-dollar International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor Even if they have to do so less-than-internationally: 'If there is no agreement at six we are determined to do it with fewer.' Not only that, but 'The EU wants an agreement on the project before the end of the year'"
There is certainly a big fat chunk of change to wind up in the host country. With costs spread across 6 contributing countries, and even if the host country has to pay a larger share, that is all money going into:
- local construction companies (high end ones)
- local infrastructure (data, transport, etc)
- ongoing salaries being spent in the local villages
- pride for the news bylines containing $GLORIOUS_MOTHERLAND
I understand the US is pretty agnostic to location (realizing that the one thing all the other 5 could agree that it would absolutely not be the US)-- but with recent developments where Paris is not so much the US friend, and Tokyo is ever more loyal, I wouldn't be surprised if the US starts to put its thumb on the scales...
davejenkins.com |
This is something so important to the people of the world, and all the politicians can think of is to fight about where it will be placed.
I just wish, for once, these people would get out of their petty mindsets and realize that the more important issue here is NOT where it's going to be, but what it is going to do.
Er, go ahead with the flaming about the evil terrorists who will destroy the reactor or take over the worlds energy sources now.
StrayByte.Net
A significat new energy source is going to be huge, especially with world demand for oil (due to the growth in Chinese industry) rising to the point where its pushing supply to the limits...
Supposedly this reactor would represent the last major step required before, hopefully, fusion power stations could become a reality. The EU very naturally wants t locate it in Europe, thus giving Europe a stronger edge and focus in alternative energy research.
Interestingly the alternate site is not in the US, but rather in Japan. And that is certainly what the EU is worried about - the Japanese economy, afte a decade and more of recession is finally starting to crawl back. And the Japanese are very good at small and efficient, and are already leading the world (jointly with Korea I guess) in alternative power transport (hybrids, and hydrogen fuel cell cars).
It will be interesting to see how the fight finally plays out.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
EU Intent on Hosting International Fusion Reactor
No. I should read 'France Intent on Hosting International Fusion Reactor'. France and Japan have been battling over the reactor since the project was announced. It looks like the consortium will splinter. That is not a bad thing. It might inject some real high stakes competition into nuclear fusion reaseach.
an ill wind that blows no good
Well, we already off load most of our CO2 production to third world countries and china, the decline in manufacturing and farming (yes farting cows) is significantly helping to reduce our CO2 levels.
The outsourcing of work to other countries is also keeping our inflation low, cheep imports=low inflation, we hardly produce any food in this country.
So don't be greedy, let a heavily polluting country like China or a country with next to no resources like Japan have the pride in have a fusion research faculty.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
um yeah that's right, France has a really big problem with "terrorists" and people disliking them don't they? Unlike, say the US.
I can only think of one country that actually dislikes the French at the moment and that's the US.
That doesn't really make any sense. The cost of oil is a net loss to the US. The US would *love* to get rid of the oil dependency, because right now our economy is so tied to what OPEC decides to price oil at.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I'd rather be French and be accused of being all "hot air" than be American and invade innocent countries, but I suppose it's a matter of taste.
:/
Mod parent down please.
Bull. This fight was going on before George W Bush got us back in ITER. Remember Clinton pulled us out? Please don't mod something insightful that is false.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Problem is -- this fight was going on BEFORE the US got back into ITER. I've been following this politicial fiasco for years. Maybe Clinton was right to pull us out when he did. Too much politics. Not enought science.
But anything that suggests that the US is anti-science and politically vindictive automatically gets a +5 insightful.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
With having 2 seperate projects. One US/Japan and an intra EU project? OK - it increases costs but a few billion is hardly significant in governmental terms. Hopefully they would engage in knowledge sharing and figure out who did what best and how TOGETHER their creations are greater than the sum of its parts...
Or maybe I'm just hoping for some rational, reasonable thinking and not politics.... Hmmm... That'll be the day....
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
You're assuming the current government of the United States cares more about the interests of their country, than about their very own private interests.
The very last thing an administration packed with oil executives wants, is their country's dependance on oil to vanish.
The US would *love* to get rid of the oil dependency
No, the GP is pretty much right: the US just want the whole "oil situation" to stay the way it is right now.
Right now, US economy is pretty much sustained by the fact that, if you want oil, you must purchase it in dollars - thus you are buying a small part of the left-pondist's debt each time.
So, the world dependency on oil is, actually, an advantage for the US.
You can save space. Or you can save time. Don't ever count on saving both at once. -- First Law of Algorithmic Analisys
Are YOU still pretending that the US invasion of Iraq had something to do with 'freedom' or 'democracy'?
Why are people suggesting that this will in any way affect the US's dependancy on oil. We use oil primarily for our vehicles. Unless everyone is going to get a fusion reactor in their car or someone miraculously solves all of the problems associated with electric cars, this will have very little affect on our dependency on oil. It will have a very large affect on our coal and fission consumption.
He also seems to have proved that gravity is caused by sound waves. The EU might be better advised to ignore him on the grounds that he is a nutter.
This is why the USA is so keen to cultivate a special friendship with Britain, and to poison her against the EU. But right now, British politics are in a mess. Blair is bad but Howard would probably be ever so slightly worse. Only the Lib Dems, and maybe the Greens, have anything sensible to say -- but they won't get elected because everybody knows, they're wasted votes.
I honestly don't see much in terms of a solution, until the oil really does start running out. Since Britain has {had?} some oil reserves of her own, this may start biting sooner rather than later
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
the other iter members went ahead and cleared the blockade that has been laid since bush reentered iter.
The first post is completely wrong about it being a "threat" to China or anyone else. China *wants* the reactor to be built in the EU instead of Japan. So does the other ITER member, Russia. If the US hadn't opposed the french location and induced Japan to resist it more strongly despite the odds, the project would have went ahead some time ago.
Unlike nuclear fission power, fusion power has enough fuel available that it could potentially supply all of the world's energy demand for thousands and even millions of years and it doesn't produce nearly as much dangerous nuclear waste nor can fusion power be used as a disguise for a nuclear weapons program. The amount of deuterium for fusion is practically unlimited - 1 kg of ordinary water contains about 1 gram of heavy water which contains deuterium instead of common hydrogen. It seems that, unlike in the past decades where the researchers said "Fusion Power will be ready soon, there are just some issues which we expect to have resolved soon if we get more money." it now is "We have the issues resolved and could build a reactor that can sustain a fusion reaction and give a net output of energy. Now we just need the money to build a reactor sufficiently large so we can prove and make sure that it works like we think it does."
Of course with such a pretty-much-as-cheap-as-coal technology available as the solar tower that is so simple in its function, provides steady uninterrupted power, and about which relevant laws of nature are so well understood that it is guaranteed to work, it may be questionable if we actually have a reasonable need for fusion power on earth. Of course, solar towers need a sunny place to build them in order to be efficient and they don't need any high-tech to build either, which may well be the reason why the west has mostly stopped supporting the technology. Solar tower for large scale electricity production can be build with just basic construction materials like mostly cement, steel and glass(which is sand) and with labor. Ideal if you want to help many poor countries, but inadequate if you want them to stay poor and dependent to keep exploiting them.
Parent is right. Why just the other day I saw Bush in his citadel of d00m laughing evilly with Cheney.
Bush was like "Har har har! Those puny enviro-freaks in Europe are looking remove the world's dependence on lovely polluting oil! Har har har! Do not worry Cheney, we will stop those enviro-freaks from giving everyone including us power to run our economy."
Joining with Bush's evil laughter, Cheney said, "Har har har! They can not stop us! Only Captain Planet could save them now!"
And at that moment Captain Planet burst through wall, made some witty environmentally friendly retorts, saved the day, and installed Ralph Nader as our new supreme leader.
If Bush really was looking to kiss industries ass, there is no reason why he would block cheap power, no matter where it came from. The oil industry is one very small industry that profits off of oil. EVERY SINGLE OTHER industry is hurt when power is expensive. So, even if Bush eats babies and wants to promote world evil, cheap power is still the name of the game.
You do know what the EU is don't you? It's (roughly) 30, sovereign, nations that all agree to co-operate. When it comes to co-operation I think Europe can teach the US an awful lot.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
To my knowledge there is and never has been a government in the world not acting hypocritically towards another nation at all. It is the very nature of politics to deceive, misinform, lie and to hide your true intentions and motivations. Accusing the French government of being hypocritical, before criticising your own government or omitting its own hypocrisy is simply wrong.
Clean up your own garden before picking on the neighbours.
pass me those sparticles will ya?!
actually it did involve westerners. If you read about the rape of nanking, you will know tha the US had ships in the harbor and marines in the embassy. In fact the japanese bombed the a US warship but war was averted. During the rape of nanking, marines had to watch from the embassy as civillians were slaughtered. They ccould not intervene because of the political will in the US. Although you dont read about it much today the anti-war groups lead by the likes of lindberg went a long way to delaying the US entry into WWII and as a result caused far more death and suffering by prolonging the war.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Come on! How do you think the rest of the world does business? Do you think the US or Japan, or any other country behaves differently? See Microsoft or Boeing, for example!
When I first read this I was thinking but isn't fusion currently incapable of producing more electricity than it consumes? Well, it turns out it is capable of producing more electricity than it consumes, but just barely. Not enough to sustain regular power generation. The record Power Amplification Factor (Q) is 1.25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_ fusion). This project is expected to push that factor up to 10, which is "proof of principle" but still below what is desirable for "good overall plant efficiency" (http://www.iter.org/ITERPublic/ITER/fr7.html). So that's why it's an "experimental" reactor. Based on the timeline of this project (and assuming it's successful) it looks like usable fusion reactors could be less than 50 years away.
Japan ? .. That whole country has bad memories associated with anything Nuklear (for the whole world too).
Do you have any idea how many fisson reactors Japan operates?
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
(1) http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/pro duct/enduse/imports/c0000.html/ us.html
(2) http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
You might want to read this too...
This is...
O
U
T
R
A
G
E
O
U
S
!