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'"

18 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. To preempt some things by Mukaikubo · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, it's not the US putting up a fight. No, it's not the US that would probably be shut out in the cold. This is a threat against Japan and to a lesser extent China. Can we please keep the US vs. Europe flamewar out of this thread?

    1. Re:To preempt some things by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, if you read the article, China is in favour of the EU site - they don't get on too well with Japan

      That is a terrible understatement. Many many Chinese have never forgiven Japan for the terrible atrocities during the Second World War. It didnt involve westerners so most in the west have nly a few scant ideas of what went on, but to the Chinese it is never to be forgotten.

      I know Chinese people who simply refuse, on spec, to ever speak to anyone of Japanese decent. Yes it really is that serious.

      Jedidiah.

    2. Re:To preempt some things by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
  2. big money, intl relations... by davejenkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:big money, intl relations... by Scarblac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wouldn't be surprised if the US starts to put its thumb on the scales...

      They already do support the Japan site, for that reason, but because they only supply a small part of the money and because Europe has by far the most experience with fusion research, the EU is apparently willing to ignore that thumb. Of course, such a threat is mostly a bargaining tactic, it'll be much cheaper if other countries outside the EU pay for part of ITER, but whatever. The US doesn't that much say in this.

      Both Japan and the EU have offered to pay a large percentage of the costs if ITER is built on their sites; I don't think there's a profit to be made, it's mostly a prestige thing.

      If I were a fusion scientist going to work on ITER, I'd much prefer to live in beautiful France than in the sparsely populated bit of North Japan where ITER would be built.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    2. Re:big money, intl relations... by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I were a fusion scientist going to work on ITER, I'd much prefer to live in beautiful France than in the sparsely populated bit of North Japan where ITER would be built.

      Northern Japan is very beautiful itself. You should go for a visit, get a rail pass and head north (as surprisingly few tourists do. Plenty of nice scenery in Nikko (just north of Tokyo and inland), and Matsushima (very beatiful there) in Tohoku (the northern half on Honshuu). Still fairly touristy for either of those, but I wouldn't want to push you too far from the mainstream.

      Jedidiah.

    3. Re:big money, intl relations... by davejenkins · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd much prefer to live in beautiful France than in the sparsely populated bit of North Japan where ITER would be built

      Hrmmm. You've probably never been to northern Japan-- it is some of the most beautiful countryside with wonderful small towns that I have ever seen-- much more attractive than France (IMHO). I can almost guess that the Japanese Govt would go off the deep end in terms of providing the coolest facilities for the scientists-- not so sure the French would do the same.

      Yes, I have lived in Europe. Yes, I live in Tokyo.

  3. *Sigh* by Tethys_was_taken · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. The EU isn't stupid... by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. A bunch of cowboys by jaymzter · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm tired of the Euros and their damned 'go it alone' attitude! The world just became a more dangerous place.

    --
    If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
  6. EU != France by amightywind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:Nobody wants it in their backyard by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is all wrong. Its not a nuclear reactor. Its a fusion reactor. It has million and million C hot plasma in it(4th state of materials). The shape of the reactor is called tokamak (at least in hungarian, not sure about the correct english writing of it). The really good thing about this reactor that its not dangerous. While in nuclear reactors, some events can lead into a chain reaction. No such thing can happen in a fusion reactor, since If the reaction gets more input(materials, heat, etc) its just shuts itself down, on the contrary to the exponential reaction observed in nuclear reactions. The fusion reactor is one of the cleanest if not the cleanest known way to produce energy.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  8. Re:The USA probably tries to by be-fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  9. 1 month = 1 reactor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With the cost of Iraq war draining at about $1.5B per week, it roughly takes 1 month of war for 1 reactor, in monetary terms.

    1. Re:1 month = 1 reactor by CountBrass · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ahem! President Bush announced the war was over a long time ago. What you meant to say was "With the cost of the Iraq peace draining at about $1.5B per week...".

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  10. Re:The USA probably tries to by ebassi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. Re:French Imperialist Bullies Disliked worldwide by Anne+Honime · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Yes I'm french, so what ?

    Um.. have you been following the news lately? As we speak (or read), there are anti-french riots in the Ivory Coast because France is still acting like an Imperial power in Africa. The French are actually engaged in a shooting war with Ivory Coast nationalists who want the French to stop interfering in their country's internal affairs. Throughout its "former" colonies in Africa, France does not hesitate to intervene and play kingmaker.

    Wrong ; we're there on the behalf of the UN. With a mandate. We've been brutally attacked, and we shot back and made sure Ivory army had no more helicopetrs to do that again. Full stop.

    How about Corsica and the resistance to French colonialism there? The Corsican resistance periodically explodes bombs to try to drive the French out.

    Trouble is the so-called corsican nationalists top at 9% in the democratic elections. I understand you're suggesting to let that fanatical minority have control over the 91% who feel they're as French as I am ? Or perhaps we should send the army down there to settle democracy the US way ? Same apply in New Caledonia btw. And to finish the picture, you should know there's no poll made public recently as to know wether mainland french wish to keep Corsica. For what I hear, I'm damn sure that most of us are ready to dump Corsica and give money to anybody willing to get them. But that would really be injust to the majority of perfectly normal citizens who happen to have a bunch of murderers for neighbours in their island.

    France's opposition to the US war in Iraq had *nothing* to do with priciple and everything to do with * French national interests in Saddam's Oil industry - The French were willing to let a brutal dictator continue to make mass graves as long as the oil contracts flowed to french companies - blood for oil ;

    USA got more than half the total money flow made through this program. Go wash your hands.

    You know, HighOrbit, we've got a saying down there : "the day when idiots will fly, there will be an endless night". Hopefully, you're showing that they'll actually fly much to high to hide the sun.

    Call me flamebait.

  12. Neutron bombardment? by molo · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the results of fusion is free neutrons, going off into whatever material surrounds the fusion process. In the case of the tokamak, neutrons can't be confined by magnetic fields because they are electrically neutral. The neutrons make the tokamak itself become highly radioactive over time, and will cause it to eventually be decommissioned because it is too dangerous to work around.

    Now, granted, the tokamak can be stored unused for a hundred years or so and then recommissioned (it is a hell of a lot better than the thousand-years half-lives of fission wasteproducts), but it is still a problem that needs to be addressed.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.