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 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
The whole point of this endeavor is that it's an experiment to develop a method that will work in the future, and a method that offers greater potential. I'm quite sure that, once fusion power becomes economical and practical on a widespread basis (and no major disasters turn public opinion against it), the cutbacks in emissions that could be made by shutting down all the older power plants will more than make up for the problems. That's a bit of an assumption, I know, but suffice to say that current methods of "alternative" power generation are not truly practical on a widespread basis.
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?
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.
It seems to me that the more "waste heat" a process produces, the more potential it has as a power source once fully developed. Any differential in temperature produced by a process can, in general, be turned into power.
And a not-well-known fact is that burning coal is slightly radioactive to the atmosphere as well.
It's all relative.
E pluribus unum
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
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.
Ok, look at is this way... by spending 10B euros on
ITER: Potentially solve the world's energy problems for a long time
Windfarms: Produce enough energy to supply about 0.6% of the world's electricity demand.
10,000MW may seem like a lot, but according to the CIA World Factbook, the world consumed 13.8 quadrillion watt-hours in 2001, so the energy produced by the windfarms they're proposing would be a drop in the ocean.
Fun tho it is to bash on greenpeace, you might want to consider a couple things.
First, they have a good point. If you've read more than simply the greenpeace soundbite, you'd know that the overall position is that this represents merely another in a chain of expensive energy projects that will not be operational many years. This reactor should be online in 2015, but the project was begun in 1988: that date should be considered with a few grains of salt. Meanwhile, conservative governments, like the Bush Emperium, get to spout about how they're pursuing clean alternatives, like fusion, instead of doing anything about future shortages now by starting a program of active conservation.
Second, though the reaction itself is indeed emissions-free, you must consider the energy budget of the entire process. This includes but is not limited to: the fabrication of the plant itself and all of its component parts, transportation of all of its component parts to the plant's location, etc. All of which are unlikely to be done with clean energy, as most are highly energy intensive industrial processes, or likely to be done using large diesel trucks. Additionally there is the question of the massive amount of energy necessary to start the fusion reaction, which is unlikely (at first anyways) to be a part of the theoretically self-sustaining nature of a fusion reactor.
This is not to say the thing shouldnt be built, it should. We just shouldnt have the illusion that its helping out with any of our energy needs any time during the first half of the century.
While I have no love for eco-nuts, it is pretty silly to ignore everything, just because you're enamored with the technology they've dissed.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles