Slashdot Mirror
France Will Be Home To Fusion Plant
ScentCone writes "After years of politicking, France has won the right to be the location for a $12 billion fusion research facility. The plant will use deuterium-from-seawater and a huge electromagnetic ring to produce the 100-million-C conditions in which researchers hope to produce viable fusion. The debate over whether this is even possible continues to rage. The ITER project started in 1985, and there has been a running fight over money and location since. France indicated that if Japan (one of the holdouts) didn't see it their way, they'd build a coalition of the willing and do it anyway. With financing and contracting agreements in place, the 10-year construction can begin." Coverage also available at MSNBC, the NYTimes, CNN, and the BBC.
I'm sure Greenpeace is gonna Love this!!
"I drank WHAT?!"--Socrates
I think it's because Greenpeace, just like every other extremist organization (See also PETA), is full of complete whackos.
While I agree that building the ITER is a good idea, you are missreading Greenpeace a bit here. What they are saying is that it will take too long to get commercial fusion reactors (~50 y), so it might be too late to stop the greenhouse effect.
I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.
I just find it funny that Greenpeace and such groups are probably doing more to promote fossil fuels-- far more harmful by almost every single possible measure than anything nuclear will ever be-- than they are in practice doing anything else at this point. Talk or harrass people out of using nuclear power and all that you're going to result in is people sticking with the existing coal and oil technology, which is both cost effective and for some reason (everyone's too used to it?) mostly leaves you free of protesters.
The most publicity-effective coal lobby in the world is doing so in the name of the environment. Great thinking!
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I regret even thinking this.. but I can hear the thoughts of all the Republicans murmuring about how it is smarter to wait for the French to go through the first mistakes so 'we' can profit from your experienced knowledge. That, and there's more money in using up the equipment and reserves for the petroleum industry before jumping ship to the 'next big thing.'
I don't agree with these thoughts.. but I can hear them.
(puts tin-foil hat back on)
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
That is, actually, something that really bugged me in the discussion of our natioanl fifth nuclear power plant. No-one ever questioned why we need more and more energy.
So, why is a low growth rate or even zero-growth in energy consumption such an impossible idea? After all, we all know that infinite growth is an impossibility.
The owls are not what they seem
You don't see a difference between unilaterally invading another country and unilaterally developing a scientific / technical project? Are there any international rules against what France did? With the US there was that whole UN Charter thing...
Germany hasn't dismantled their nuclear power plants just yet. They have a law saying that the existing plants will be shut down after a shorter than expected lifetime (20 years instead of 30) and that no new plants will be built, but this is expected to be turned around by the next legislature way before a single plant is actually concerned. I don't know whether they export lots of electricity from France. France does a lot of business selling electricity to Spain and Italy though.
kW.h prices for individual households in France are close to the European average, but the effective price is somewhat lower since the monopoly electrical utility belongs to the state, and that the juicy profits it makes are that much tax that doesn't have to be paid.
The job market for physicists is tough, but even so, I imagine they'd have trouble attracting top-notch people to the Sahara or other sparsely inhabited (or AIDS-decimated) parts of Africa.
Two headed rhinos and elephants would be cool, though.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Would I want a fusion research facility in my neighborhood? Hell yes!
...
Too many people have this stigma about anything with the word nuclear in it that they panic and envision 50 foot ants eating them. Nuclear = dealing with the nucleus of the atom. Nuclear fusion = combining two light nuclei to make a heavier nucleus and release energy. Other than neutron activation of the surrounding material (the immediate area around the reaction, since it likely to be well shielded) there is no residual radiation (unlike fission which leaves slowly decaying fissile materials afterward).
Magnets?
Ruin the soil or rain? This process doesn't have to emit anything to the atmosphere or water. Unlike conventional fossil fuel plants which spew tons (tons!) of material into the air.
I worked at Fermilab for awhile and there would always be a protest for a couple of weeks during the summer by people who just plain did not understand a bit of physics. They apparently read that the lab, reproduces the energy levels present at near the big bang, and assumed it was some sort of risk to the world (universe?).
I am not in anyway affiliated with Max Cannon
They are against new coal plants with modern scrubber technology, they are against fission plants, now they are against this expiremental fusion plant. Do they realize that humanity needs energy to live and thrive?
Absolutely - which is why they advocate for safe technology (wind and solar power) that is economically and environmentally responsible in the present as opposed to 50 years down the road.
I'm all in favor of developing fusion power and other alternatives, but why wait on utilizing some of the current (no pun) energy alternatives?
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
Greenpeace is against building power plants because they are against the idea of humanity being so dominant. To many environmental groups, mankind is often seen as synonymous with a cockroach infestation. To these groups, any given tree or platypus has more of a right to be where it is than we, the humans, have to put in yet another road for our SUVs. We should be a partner with nature, not a overwhelming force dominating it. Nature has inherent value beyond being a resource to be exploited, manipulated or eliminated. The more extreme groups would really like to see mankind return to a agrarian society, thereby "sticking the thumb" at corporations *and* helping the environment.
This is being devil's advocate, of course, but the response to your question about humanity needing to live and thrive is "At what point does humanity say 'enough is enough'?" That is Greenpeace and Co.'s rationalization.
What?
That didn't happen with fission power, but perhaps it will happen with fusion power.
It won't happen with either, so long as oil remains absurdly profitable and we're not choking to death on carbon-dioxide.
Uh. That's not really a problem in countries that consume the most energy and cry for more. Wasteful consumption and public contempt for any conservation efforts (just witness all the dismissive comments under this article) are the worst problems. But I don't really care anymore; we, as a human race, will get what we deserve. Too bad it will be the future generations who'll end up paying for our spending.
The owls are not what they seem
Is it reasonable to compare current power-generation technologies to Fusion? The reason Fusion power plants don't have either of these problems is that there aren't any fusion power generation plants in existence!
The chances are that once we do have viable fusion power generation, there may be a down-side or two. But we won't know these negative aspects, or even if there will be any negatives at all to Fusion power until we actually have it delivered.
I guess that's just common sense, though.
Nice to see that on an interesting and scientific story about the possible solution to the world's energy problems the discussion decends into just slagging off the French. I thought this was a site for geeks interested in technology and science, not a playground for people to trade cheap insults.
And you Yanks are always accusing everyone of being anti-American, can you not see any hypocrisy?
For the record I am not French but I think the EU deserved to have this in their backyard - after all the EU is the major contributor. This is fantastic news, if this works then at a stroke the world will have access to what is essentially unlimited energy. No more greenhouse gasses, smog and you will be able to run a Pentium 7 without causing a blackout across the entire continent.
Yea I like cute volunteer chicks like that. "I wish everybody would stop fighting and polluting the environment. It'd make me feel much safer and secure."
They're just dying to find a nice highly-paid computer programmer like me. Then they can afford a hybrid car and go out to lunch with all their cute volunteer friends. And when I come home she'll tell me about all of the important volunteer activities she did that day. And I'll tell her about my day. About how my ideas are helping my huge company become more profitable and expand their energy-hunry operations. But she'll feel all cozy and safe and secure knowing that I've got a good job allowing her to do her volunteer work with Greenpeace.
In my view, Japan is so perfectly suited, technology and mentality-wise, to pull this off.
In my view, France is as suited as Japan for that, even more perhaps. One of the reasons that makes me think so is that France is the only country (with usa) that currently operates the technology to treat nuclear waste. Japan doesn't have it and is sending its to France. Sure, Japan could have it too, but they didn't invest in nuclear as much as France did. Another good point for France, is the CRNS (french-based institute with massive international participation and worldwide recognition for its atomic and subatomic research.)
So it took 20 years for ITER to make a decision? That would make even Washington D.C. bureaucrats proud...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Imagine if we had spent $180 billion on it in 2003 in a manhattan project style research program instead of fighting the Iraq war? We'd probably have limitless energy already.
I know this is flamebait (and pretty funny, besides they deserve it), but I always have to take issue with
- American Revolution
Sorry, Ameri-centrists, but France saved our ass on this one. Saying the colonists defeated Britain on their own is like saying the Northern Alliance defeated the Taliban. That's a little bit of hyperbole, but France was nevertheless instrumental in our victory. I try to tone down my French-bashing just based on this debt of gratitude.
As for the World Wars, I'm wondering what country you could have put in France's position and expected to do better. Holding off Germany for years in WWI while the U.S. decided whether or not they wanted to do anything isn't something to be scoffed at. U.S. gloating over these wars reminds me of two boxers going at it for ten rounds, and then in the eleventh round another fighter who had been sitting safetly in the locker room jumps into the ring and pops out the fatigued opponent, and then mocks the other fighter for not having the strength to do it themselves.
The enemies of Democracy are
yes, I'd have expected high-tech stuff to be in Japan too, but Japan is a geologically unstable country - a fusion reactor is an expensive bit of kit, and if it can be located in a less unstable country then yay! It'll reduce the costs of building an earthquake-proof building for it too.
iirc Japan currently has difficulty supplying itself with power and until it's producing power (somewhere near the end of the project, I suspect) it's gonna need a good source of power to guzzle from - France (and, if necessary, the power infrastructure of the rest of Western Europe - Japan being an island next to China and the back end of Russia)
Oh, and it'll be closer to CERN for access to clever particle physicist boffin types.
But most importantly, it'll be close enough to the UK for education establishments here to organise visits
FGD 135
Ok, the guy showed his ignorance. Know what, I wasn't aware of that fact too, so what?
He actually took the facts he knows, did a 2+2, and arrived at an apparent contradiction. Good thinking! I am ashamed that I didn't arrive at same conclusion without knowing about the iron's stability. I'd dare to say that that's the way of thinking that advances science.
So, OK, he asked a question, and you happen to know the answer. Does not make him stupid. I know this is Slashdot and all, but he really gave you no reason to bash him.
I don't think it's so much a question of "stalling" as it is a question of "cutting corners".
The Manahattan Project went ahead with its atomic pile testing before the smarty men had confirmed that the pile would not trigger an unstoppable world-destroying chain reaction. That's called cutting a corner, and that's probably why The Bomb was ready in time for its wartime application, instead of being ready ten or fifteen years later, after all the due diligence had been completed.
So I'm with the grandparent poster, really. Maybe ten years is unrealistic, but I'm betting that if it came down to an immediate, obvious question of survival of the human race, the fusion smarty men would find a LOT of corners to cut, and we'd have a quick-and-dirty humanity-saving solution rolled out just in time.
In other words: the main reason we don't have working alternative energy solutions today is because we're still not sufficiently motivated.
Also, it should be obvious by now that eco-nutjob screeching isn't what's going to toggle that motivation thing on. If Greenpeace really wanted us to care about solving the energy problem, they'd be leading the way in oil overconsumption. The sooner we start to seriously feel the oil shortage, the sooner we'll get off our asses and find a replacement. (As an alternative (eheh), the Greenpeace asshats could exercise just a little patience and self control, since they shouldn't have to wait too much longer for the oil shortage thing to really kick in.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
which relies upon a presumption that Greenpeace is against the technology rather than the timings involved in developing it
Or, you could do a little more homework and see that Greenpeace actually does oppose the very technology in question. Here they are quoted as saying that fusion "has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident." This doesn't come across like a position on the timing of the research. Greenpeace holds all sorts of positions that, acted upon, would be mind numbingly expensive. Even they can't think it's an either-or proposition (researching new methods, like fusion, while also making current technologies more efficient). These things aren't mutually exclusive, but Greenpeace's "anything with the the prefix 'nuc' is inherently evil/foolish" mantra is nonsense.
The larger issue, though, to get back to your point (wherein you called me a liar), is that the quote in question, as I presented it, is going to be digested by most casual (and non-scientific) news consumers in pretty much exactly the context in which is was quoted. They're going to hear "this is nuclear, it's bad" no matter how many phrases come before or after it. Greenpeace's frequently simple-minded fan club doesn't really bother with the details, pretty much ever.
But more to the (and back to my original) point: blocking this sort of research doesn't magically make any of Greenpeace's fantasy solutions instantly more achievable or economically viable. But if they can demonstrate to enough people that those things are worth pursuing, that doesn't make important research like this less so. If the people who speak for (or rave about) Greenpeace wanted to sound less shrill, they'd adopt a more rational tone generally. But after all these years, they keep choosing not to, and live in a emotionally inflated, eco-anthropomorphized echo chamber that doesn't actually help develop the tools that would burn less oil. They rely on fear-soaked press releases that, even to the non-savvy are transparently silly, and seem to think that grade-school level dramatics and tantrum-having will solve problems. And to the extent that not everyone involved is like that, those people should be realizing how the whinier majority of their group robs all of them of any credibility whatsoever.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.
What's truly tragic, is that their position is represented by the Limbaughs and O'Reilly's of the world as "the mainstream Liberal position".
Frankly, I would much rather have seen the $300 Billion US we've spent in Iraq (so far) instead, spent on Fusion research in the US. If the Fusion research succeeds, then there's no fucking reason to go to Iraq or any other damn Middle Eastern country ever. I think THAT is closer to the mainstream Liberal position than the Greenpeace drivel.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
No. Because you (greenpeace) put the environment above people.
The whole point of environmentalism is to preserve a sustainable habitat for OUR species. That includes protecting other species - it even probably includes limiting our own growth. But to an outsider, that sounds like "exterminate all humans and let the snowy plover live in peace".
That's not a meme that's going to gain wide acceptance among the sane and rational. But whatever floats your "Rainbow Warrior".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The Reuters article is not very balanced, and your post reflects this. Here's how the BBC decided to quote Greenpeace:
Sounds a bit more reasonable, whether you agree with that position or not.
I think your post was a bit of a cheap shot designed to appeal to the current Slashdot groupthink. It wasn't all that long ago Microsoft-bashing was the favourite karma whoring method. Now that blatantly one-sided criticism of Microsoft is passe, the Greenpeaces and PETAs of the world have become our favourite whipping boys
The French, the British, the German, the Russian, the Italian, the Austrian (or these nation states ancestors) have all at different times dominated military in Europe and too often created havoc on the European continent, not to mention the rest of the world. Many of the European wars have been because one of the great nations got the military upper hand (or thougth they had) and wanted to revenge their last loss of land to one of their European neighbours. Look for instance how the land area behind France and Germany has traded owners through the centuries (latest land trade was of course after WWI and WWII). There is symbolic significance that Strasbourg is where the EU parliment is located, a very German and French city in culture, architecture and language for obvious reasons (just look at a map).
And European history is a reminder for all great nations to be careful before starting a war since the rule of war is that it only create losers and no winners. The US should be careful not to inherit (seems its already too late) the European tradition of starting uneccessary wars when having a large army. Just look at China's incredible long history to find an example how a dominant nation does not necessarily at all times need to expand or start wars with all its neighbours (remember Chinese invented gun powder, while it was the Europeans that used gun powder to conquere the world).
After all that, lets look at the last part of your "freedom fries" list. In WWI France had the main war on their own land and sacrified 1,400 ,000 men. US, which won the war in your history book, lost 116,000. And of course we all agree that WWII that followed, where 40 million people died all over the world, only was won by the US joining in 1943. Especially since the Germans lost 93 % of their forces fighting the Russians.
Anyway, making frog jokes is a nice way for your right wing media, like the Wall Street Journal, to stop USians ask any awkard questions why US marines are dying 3 per day in Iraq at the moment.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
The flaw of the argument is also quite typical:
Just because the IETR gets funding doesn't mean that other forms of energy development is going to even slow down.
It's not only possible, but desirable to fund many different energy projects; simply trying to throw more resources at any particular problem doesn't necessarily mean that it will get finished any faster.
The greenpeace argument depends on the belief that somehow all scientists are equal, and you can take any metallurgist, and he'll magically be an immediate expert in nuclear physics. The fact is that each area of energy development is highly specialized; taking decades to learn the dicipline; you can't just take the people working on the ITER and move them to solar power, and expect them to work their best; first you insult them by telling them their life's work is worth nothing, then you force them to do something they don't like.
It would also have a terrible effect on scientific morale; why start a promising new branch of research at all; you won't be able to prove your theories anyway!
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
If we don't keep those religious zelots in check in the ME (and they do want the distruction of western civilization, can't argue it any other way), eventually an atomic bomb will be smuggled in.
Let me tell you something, it's going to cost a shitload more then $300 billion to cleanup a leveled city and the ramifications there-of in the future. Not to mention the millions of lives lost....
Life is not for the lazy.
To these groups, any given tree or platypus has more of a right to be where it is than we, the humans, have to put in yet another road for our SUVs People like you live in scifi phantasy land, where you actually think that we can make tradeoffs between more environment or more technology. But we can't. Our current level of population, our current resource consumption, and our current environmental destruction aren't sustainable. The longer we continue, the harder the eventual crash will be. It doesn't matter how much technology we throw at the problem. So, worrying about platypuses and trees isn't about "values" or "rights", it's about long-term survival of our own species.
---k--
</stupid>
CAUTION: Post contains politically incorrect crimethink.
/ bdes/altamont/altamont.html
a gnetic-Fields-EMF1jun04.htm (Note that Arthur is someone who would be much better off if he took his medication. Seriously.)
which is why they advocate for safe technology (wind and solar power) that is economically and environmentally responsible
Note that wind power, particularly high density sited systems capable of powering more than a farmhouse, have their own consequences: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs
Solar installations raise similar issues, related primarily to siting. The best solar power generation locations are those with little overcast, relatively close to the equator. That makes the Southwest United States a good location, but the combination of all that construction and the permanent shading of huge regions of the desert will be fought as causing more ecological damage.
Yes, solar power sats and a microwave downlink to an 'antenna farm' would cause much less damage. The land under the antenna grid can be safely farmed, and the power density (watts/square foot) would be lower than direct sunlight. That won't stop the 'deadly microwave radiation' . http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Electrom
I think alternate energy sources, from wind and geothermal though powersats, AND nuclear fission plants, would be a good thing. Never assume that the politically correct choice will be the best one, though, or that it will be blessed by all.
We need more energy today because there are more things I want. Outside it is about 90 F. 50 years ago I would have flop down naked on my bed and sweat myself to sleep. Instead, I have a nice wall mounted AC to blast cold air at my bed. 50 years ago I would be listening to a little radio or reading a book. Not that I still don't enjoy the later activity, but I also like my computer, which currently sounds like a jet engine as the fans on it are trying desperately to keep it cool despite the horrid temperature of my apartment (AC is only in my bedroom). I drive to work which is roughly 30 miles away - an almost unspeakable distance to travel every day a 100 years ago. I got an MRI a couple years ago when I had a pain in my side. I have a flushing toilet. I have a cell phone, a laptop, a printer, a dishwasher, a washing machine, and a dryer.
Every single one of these things takes energy. Now, if you really think it is our duty to live without those things, let me point you to your nearest third world nation where you can spend the rest of your life not consuming more and more energy. The simple fact of the matter is that as time moves forward, so will technology. If you want to reap the rewards of that technological progression, you will need to consume energy.
Could we simply just stop and say enough is enough? Perhaps you could, but most people won't. In the same way your parents or grand parents gave up washing clothes by hand for the convince of it and now you would likely never give up the convince, so to will you accept technology and raise children who will refuse to give it up... and that is to say nothing of the BILLIONS of people in this world that don't even have what you have, see what you do, and demand the same thing. If you want to talk about an environmental disaster in the making, picture 5 billion other people in this world that don't have the same standard of living as you who will not be content remain have nots.
Technology is the only answer. 6+ billion people living like Americans, or even Europeans can not be sustained. Those people WILL rise. We can either have clean technology to meet their energy needs when they get here, or watched the number of dirty energy producing plants in this world rise exponentially. Personally, I would rather see us working towards technological solutions to meet the demands that will come, rather then watch as 5 billion people go through another messy industrial revolution.
Always-on wind and solar? We'll need at least some fossil or (preferably) nuclear power for a very, very long time.
Me (Blog)
Sometimes, you just gotta shut up and build the damn thing.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would feel a whole lot better knowing they had gotten the math right before they attempt to kickstart what is in essence an artificial sun no more than meters from the surface of our planet.
IMHO Fusion should be able to provide far more generated power per square foot of "reactor" than a decent sized wind farm, which means less wasteage of resources (in some countries, arable land can be, and is classed as a resource). I agree with the poster of the parent that something needs to be done, but in this particular case, I wouldn't personally advocate haste, just in case.
In order achive the goal, you must look beyond Iraq.
Exactly. So why are we in Iraq again?
Part of the reason is that even in more "progressive" European nations oil and dirty engergy is very heavily subsidized.
.EU, gas is around EUR 1,- a liter, which translates to around US 4.50 a gallon. In .NL it's even worse - around US 6,- a gallon.
..
What countries, exactly ? Generally in the US gas is way cheaper than in Europe
In cheaper countries in
It's more like that oil is very heavily taxed
Living is a horizontal fall
Nature has inherent value beyond being a resource to be exploited, manipulated or eliminated
To say that Nature has an inherent value apart from humans is a fallicy.
For anything to have value, one must say of value to whom? Values and judgements and ideas and theories all fail to exist without someone or something to HAVE Those values. Without mankind, the planet could burn. Does a dead planet like mars have the same value? Do we weep when a supernova destroys an empty, lifeless system of planets who all have no life or atmosphere? Of course not.
Nature is , really, how things are, sans-humans. The natural state, the original state. but given that our means of survival is not automatic, that we as humans must master our environment in order to survive, (not trust instinct or use some special evolved strength or appendage) means that humans cannot just leave things as is and expect to survive.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Actually, France got us into the whole Vietnam thing in the first place. And, while there were many mistakes, clearly the biggest one was not following through with post-war support of the the south Vietnamese government.
And now France wants us to cut off support to the post-war Iraqi government? That's not surprising, since the French government has publicly stated that they'd like to "counter-balance" (weaken) the United States on the world stage.
And yes, this certainly is the post-war stage. No remnant of the former government remains, and the whole insurgency would collapse without foreign support.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation