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'"

Comments

big money, intl relations...

[davejenkins]

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...

Re:big money, intl relations...

[totatis]

France has always disliked Americans. At least that is the impression that I get.

As a French myself, let me tell you something : you're utterly wrong. We like americans unless they try to bully us. And being pride and quite arrogant, we really have a big issue with Bush. Other than that, and at least until Bush and his cronies started to spit on France, we thought americans as some of our best friends.
But, hey, given the current mentality in US, I think that like too many of your compatriots, you prefer to think of you as nice, and surely the rest of the world drools with envy about your country, and so acts as assholes against you right ?

Oh, and outside of your fantasy world, we don't have an attitude towards Americans, we have an attitude towards assholes bullies, and religious maniacs. Trouble is, Bush is both. Fortunally, and unlike you, we don't make stupid generalizations and confuse your president with all americans.

*Sigh*

[Tethys_was_taken]

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.

The EU isn't stupid...

[Coryoth]

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.

EU != France

[amightywind]

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.

Re:The USA probably tries to

[be-fan]

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.

Re:To preempt some things

[MyLongNickName]

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.

Re:The USA probably tries to

[killbill!]

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.

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.

Re:The USA probably tries to

[ebassi]

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.