Slashdot Mirror
ITER Fusion Reactor Enters Existential Crisis
deglr6328 writes "The long beleaguered experimental magnetic confinement fusion reactor ITER is currently in what some are calling the worst crisis of its 25 year history. Still existing only on the paper of thousands of proposed design documents, the latest cost estimates for the superconducting behemoth are soaring to nearly 20 billion USD — roughly twice the estimates from as recently as a few years ago. Anti-nuclear environmentalist organizations have seized upon the moment as an opportunity to use the current global economic crisis as a means to push for permanently killing the project. If ITER is not built, the prospect of magnetic confinement fusion as a technique to reach thermonuclear breakeven and ignition in the laboratory would be in serious question. Meanwhile, the largest laser-driven inertial confinement fusion project, the National Ignition Facility, has demonstrated the ability to use self-generated plasma optical gratings to control capsule implosion symmetry with high finesse, and is on schedule to achieve ignition and potentially high gain before the end of the year."
That sounds terrifying. Then I read that it is just going to go unfunded. Not quite as interesting. Well played, headline writer, well played.
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
"Anti-nuclear environmentalists"? Having them argue against a *fusion* project pretty much proves that these idiots are not qualified to remember to breathe, much less protect the environment.
Brett
Anti-nuclear environmentalist organizations . . .
Do those actually exist? Why? How exactly is fusion bad for the environment? I can understand fission, but fusion? come on, people... I know there are issues with tritium and the structure becoming slightly radioactive, but consider the alternatives.
Anti-nuclear environmentalist organizations...
So let me get this right, despite the fact that nuclear is incredibly safe, low-polluting, we still can't do research on it to make it safer and to increase "green" energy? How do these people expect us to get electricity?
Can't do coal because that pollutes, can't do oil/gas/diesel because that pollutes, can't use hydroelectric power because that can damage ecosystems, can't use wind power because it poses a risk to birds/bats, can't use biomass because if used at an industrial scale it still pollutes, and I'm sure if solar was halfway economical they would be protesting them because they were "ruining" the beauty/ecosystem of the desert.
Really, if you want "green" energy in our lifetime, support nuclear power. If not we still have way more than enough coal/oil to use...
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Make room in the budget. And then throw a few anti-nuke hippies in the barrel to see if that helps bring the Joules(in) / Joules(out) ratio under unity.
Anti-nuclear environmentalist organizations
The above statement appears to be ad-hominem nonsense. Quoth TFA:
green parliamentarians who believe that ITER is too costly and too speculative to warrant support. Rather than spending money on nuclear fusion, the greens would like to see ITER's funding spent on near-term renewable energy sources.
ITER is terribly expensive. Combined with a substantial risk that the project could fail to produce valuable results, it seems that asking hard questions and investigating alternatives for that investment is a wise move.
Nah, I see nothing wrong with the way we get our energy now. Nothing at all...
ITER is/was a white elephant for inertial confinement physicists.
Laser confinement is basically weapons research (refinement of bomb codes, never going to break even in sustained fusion).
Bussard-esq electo-static confinement is cool, but unconfirmed in terms of a possible break-even.
Azural - instrumentals
Well, Brett, I see you didn't even bother to read the articles. The summary blatantly misrepresents the environmentalist groups.
Based on the quotes in the articles, they're clearly not anti-nuclear. They're just asking for proper government regulation of any installations that are in fact built. Now, it's debatable whether the US government is capable of offering such regulation, especially after the BP disaster. But nevertheless, asking for regulation does not make them "anti-nuclear".
All progress must stop so we can, um, stay in the financial crisis forever?
ITER, Europe -- Physicists at the ITER Fusion Reactor announce new physics particle, known as the Existention. Previously only observed being emitted by cats placed in trap boxes filled with deadly acid, the creation of synthetic Existentions will open up a whole new line of research in quantum bogodynamics. An anonymous source close to the research team said it happened when the tight jeans worn by one of the research assistants distracted the operator of the reactor, causing what she loosely termed a "man event".
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Let me just say that fusion power is aweful; we should be using solar power instead.
I'll just wait for the irony to sink in. Yeah.
Gulf of Mexico oil spill units?
it makes me want to kill myself over and over. It really does. also the caps limit thing is retarded also the caps limit thing is retarded also the caps limit thing is retarded also the caps limit thing is retarded also the caps limit thing is retarded also the caps limit thing is retarded also the caps limit thing is retarded also the caps limit thing is retarded
Wow. That's a lot of jargon for one sentence...
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
but what if we need to destroy a black hole?
> demonstrated the ability to use self generated plasma optical gratings to control capsule implosion symmetry with high finesse.
Yeah. I do that sometimes too. Passes the time, ya know.
Is the Polywell, which uses inertial electrostatic and magnetic confinement. And if physicists cared about actually giving the world nuclear fusion power they would cease work on the futile ITER project, which at this point is little more than a jobs program for some nuclear physicists, and start work on the Polywell fusion device, which only needs millions of dollars to be proven correct, not the countless billions that have been squandered on the ITER.
Right... I have NEVER seen commercial products made from experiments where the resulting product was smaller than the experimental rig...
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Maybe they just like burning coal and oil? Or perhaps they think it's fun to dramatically alter a region's environment with dams and reservoirs for hydroelectric.
Solar and wind is great but the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and the wind doesn't blow every day. And I bet if you look hard enough you can find an environmentalist that is against geothermal power.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
NIF is not a fusion energy experiment. It was developed because of the Nuclear test ban treaties. The main goal of NIF is validation of simulation codes that model thermal nuclear detonations. Only a small portion of experimental time will be dedicated non classified energy research.
But perhaps more importantly it is extremely questionable if you can build one into a power plant. To get power out of an inertial confinement device you need to implode the full at least 10 times per second. That means positioning the full firing the driver and removing the byproducts in 0.1s. By comparison NIF will be lucky to get 10 shots per day.
The problem ITER has is that the design was never finalized and keeps evolving as new results from Plasma Physics community come in everyday.
They should change the design from a tocamak to a stellarator, which look way cooler. Alternatively, didn't the late Robert Bussard say his full size polywell would only cost $200 million? Maybe try that design.
So, you are positing the "what some of them _really_ hate is the technological lifestyle" argument?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Mod parent up: +1 crazytown
Like the Spruce Goose?
It is usually easier to scale up a design than the other way around. ITER is so huge because the designers can't be bothered to increase the plasma density too much. It is too hard a problem. Yet money does not seem to be a problem in their head. Well it is in the real world.
"but the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day"
Actually its pretty good, the odd eclipse every now and then but sure seems to shine a awful lot after that.
At least I've never heard about the sun going out at anytime.
Hmmm... like radio, television, microwave, computing, internal combustion...
Yeah, you're right I am delusional /sarcasm
Wherever You Go, There You Are
The physics works the same when it comes to scaling down electronics. That's obvious based on the last several decades of Moore's law.
Since you're obviously so well schooled in plasma physics, would you care to tell us how plasma behavior scales down in the same way that VCRs did from the 70s to the 90s?
AccountKiller
Like computers?
The one I am using to type this is the size of how many rooms? Oh yeah, this is my netbook, for fun I will make my next comment from my droid.
Now, it's debatable whether the US government is capable of offering such regulation, especially after the BP disaster. But nevertheless, asking for regulation does not make them "anti-nuclear".
Okay, but the problem is that if you think you need successful regulation to prevent a BP spill-like disaster, then you still kinda don't understand fusion power.
The problem with the BP spill is that once a problem occurred and oil leaked, the oil does what it naturally does and continues to be pushed out by the pressure underground. The problem with fission reactors is that when the control rods fail, the enriched uranium does what it naturally does and continues to release neutrons in a chain reaction.
When a fusion reactor fails, the fusion stops on a timescale that to human eyes would be called "instantly". The whole reason nuclear fusion is such a hard thing to make into a power source is that it takes so much damn effort to make the source material actually fuse because that is not it's natural state until you get enough of it in one place that you call it a star. It's inherent in the nature of the power source that it can't go out of control. "Out of control" means "stopped".
I'm an environmentalist, but also pro-fission. Yet I do think concerns about regulation of fission reactors are valid. How worried am I about regulation of fusion reactors? None worried.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'm sure those "top scientists" have given a lot of thought to the size of ITER and its budget -- as they plan their retirements around it.
The sun does not shine 24 hours a day?
So does the fusion just stop? This is the first time I have heard of this.
Or maybe you mean, in one spot in that case I advise you to think about a solar array in orbit.
You are thinking of the best nuclear power in theory and conveniently forgetting the steps required to make the fuel and they are thinking of the worst nuclear power ever in practice and forgetting that Chenobyl scared everyone into taking more care.
Both views are extreme, both, unfortunately for your optimism, are wrong.
Reality is between the two until we actually put in some R&D to bring your view closer to reality. Instead there is some stupid blinkered view that we got it all right in 1970, which means those efforts today that are very close to getting it right don't get much funding.
Supporting nuclear power shouldn't always mean spend a vast amount of taxpayers money and fifteen years to build a 1970s plant painted green (eg. Sweden), it should mean not swallowing all the bullshit from the US nuclear lobby and instead looking at the emerging technologies that may even be commercially viable. That does mean looking offshore at things developed in countries where they actually spent money on R&D if you want a prototype this decade.
I'm sure those "top scientists" have given a lot of thought to the size of ITER and its budget -- as they plan their retirements around it.
Indeed: some of these people are going to retire having spent their entire careers not building working fusion reactors. So I'd rather trust the thoughts of some random Slashdot poster than a 'top scientist' who's achieved nothing of substance after spending decades and billions of dollars in research.
It's the "blame the smelly hippies" thing all over again, and once again the people you are blaming do not have the political power to do anything but make a mostly ignored noise as they complain.
Some would like to do exactly what you say, but that doesn't matter - how the hell are they going to?
They are insignificant and politically weak, so blaming them is just kicking a cat.
Granted, I'm a novice in this area, but it seems to me that hydrogen based fusion is a failure, and it's time to admit it. They've been promising that we'd have fusion "real soon now" since I was a kid (say 1984 or so), and it is still just as far off now as it was then. I'm far more interested in alternative approaches. Lately, the best approaches to me seem to be space-based--especially solar power satellites and helium-3 fusion using helium 3 harvested from the Lunar regolith. Probably, a combination of the two...
Sorry, but it just seems like we're throwing good money after bad here.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
So now we have a mysterious un-named evil anti-intellectual, anti-rational, anti-scientific pressure group. How much power do these evil mysterious trouble makers have? Are they completely in control of whatever organization that they are in? Are there any other people in these groups that are in favor of fusion research? Is there any debate about the relative merits of fusion vs. other non-fossil energy sources among the "anti-fusion environmentalist organizations"?
The article referred to is in Nature, the prestigious British science journal. Do you think that they have any self interest in this debate? What are the chances that they would support the ending of a major scientific research effort in Europe in any circumstances? It's not that they are corrupt, but there is no question what side of the issue they will support.
And look how the Slashdot hoards start barking like a bunch of dogs who just caught a cat when they have a chance to trash "environmentalists". Some quotes:
Yes, according to the Slashdot Pundits, all environmentalists are the same: irrational anti-scientific scum who want to drive the planet into a new dark ages because of their ill founded personal vendetta against rational thought. No shades of gray here. No possibility that environmentalists can have various opinions. No possibility that there might be people in the environmental movement who are pro-fusion.
For all the pretense that Slashdot readers are rationalist who use there intellect to examine all sides of an issue, all I see here is a bunch of prejudiced morons who are more interested in thumping their chests and screaming insults at a perceived enemy then actually thinking about issues. You are exactly the same as the people who you construe as your opposition: irrational pigheads who cling to their preconceived notions and would rather make baseless charges then engage in meaningful discussion.
Why is Snark Required?
Obviously, an ideal power generation technology would be one that neatly scales from "smart dust" to "dyson sphere" and everything in between; but we are still waiting for the magic pony to deliver that one.
I think, though, that you underestimate the potential utility of technologies that can't easily be scaled down. Assuming an ITER-like fusion system actually works(obviously, if it doesn't, or is absurdly uneconomic, all bets are off), it isn't going to replace the legions of tiny, little, fast-spin-up gas turbine units; but there are still things you can do with it.
In areas of very high population density, you can just run power lines. That won't work for the boonies; but much of the world population doesn't live in the boonies(they wouldn't be the boonies if they did).
Of broader use, though, is the fact that a fair number of industrial and chemical processes are extremely energy intensive; but create a product that can be fairly easily transported, thus effectively "shipping electricity". Things like aluminum refining. Were some sort of very-large-scale fusion widget to work, one would expect to see a relatively small number of installations worldwide, each surrounded either by extremely dense populations, or by massive industrial hubs, shipping things in and out by (presumably electric) rail.
Guys, please. Its Friday evening here in the states. Reading the intro my eyes glazed over half way through it. This is time for friends, food, drink, and some more drink. Way too intense a story to follow right now. Have a great evening!
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
Inertial confinement may give some limited insight, but I believe it's mainly built for nuclear weapons research in the age of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
NIF in the US, and Mégajoule in France are twin factories. Mégajoule's cost is about 5 billion euros. (or so was it last time I read on its cost.)
Right... I have NEVER seen commercial products made from experiments where the resulting product was smaller than the experimental rig...
You know that computer you're looking at?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Sigh, I normally don't want to bother commenting on articles that have to do with fusion, but given the traffic that /. receives, it seems almost irresponsible to let such bullcrap have its way every time it rears its head.
First off, even from the getgo, ITER is arguably more pointless than it is purposeful. It's nowhere near a stepping stone towards an actual powerplant, even if this sucker proves to be able to do pulsed Q>10 fusion, the technology required for heating won't be economically or thermodynamically feasible for energy production for decades to come. While it's politically a great way to blow a large sum of money (we pulled out of this program at first, but went back in because Bush needed to kiss France's ass for the Iraq war), the most useful science coming out of it will be materials science in trying to deal with high TC superconductors and blanket materials constantly suffering neutron damage; blanket materials we won't need until a real fusion powerplant comes along (once again, decades). That aside, since its original proposal of sustained thermonuc. fusion has been thrown out in favor of hour-long pulses, probably 90% of the physics it will undergo is either known predictable. (In other words, this is NOT the plasma physics equivalent of the LHC, which is actually necessary to set boundary conditions on many physical models).
Now that's all a big clusterF* of he-said she-said that political spin gets to amplify 100-fold, but what really gets me is the comparison to NIF. Read the next few sentences very carefully:
1. NIF requires its tiny fuel pellets to be perfectly symmetrical, encased in a gold hohlraum, and perfectly centered, then shot at by the most powerful laser system ever created in earth.
2. NIF is a giant weapons research project, funded mostly by the DOD (Department, of, Defense) because we want to play nice and not test full blown warheads, and are instead simulating their fusion reactions in a laboratory (Go google NIF's funding, or enjoy the tid-bit that hohlraum was a classified word less than 30 years ago, the mention of which could get you interrogated by the FBI)
3. The laser system used to beat the crap out of the carefully assembled perfect heavy-water pellet has less than 1% efficiency. I don't care how big your Q is, the technology to fix THAT problem is way more than decades away.
4. Finally, a real powerplant, using the current studies NIF is undergoing, would require over ~60 perfectly frozen pellets (purpose is for yield, either of turbine-driving energy or more realistically better warhead modeling) per second fusion rate, lasers with a hundred times better efficiency (putting it at, oh say 10%? hah), and quite a bit of gold, that or another mechanism which they aren't studying.
The next time someone talks NIF like we're not trying to figure out a better way to irradiate large plots of people or land, please just look at them like the idiots they are.
I'm sorry fusion power is taking so long, we're working on it, and we're working pretty hard. But hey, and near-infinite supply of power from just centrifuged seawater is worth the wait, right? =P
Timothy, if you dont understand big words, dont use them.
lol wut?
GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
ITER is the holy grail, but by no means the only way to utilize nuclear fusion for energy production. Hybrid fission/fusion reactors offer a compelling, affordable intermediate step to fusion power. While it's difficult to achieve break-even using current fusion technology, these reactors can still generate plenty of neutrons. And neutrons are exactly what's needed to transmute nuclear waste. Difficult? Sure, but not more difficult than the difficulties faced by the anemic ITER organization, which was practically designed to fail.
$20 billion? It's like in that movie 'Contact', it costs that much for everyone else to build, but Japan secretly already built one for a few million.
Scratched Emulsion
It has nothing to do with power generation, and will by its very design never be usable for it.
It’s not its point.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I thought I'd chime in.
Many countries worldwide are doing just fine without Nuclear Power. Check out New Zealand for one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_New_Zealand
I am not an "environmentalist", I soundly believe that we shouldnt be polluting this, or any other planet if we have a choice, I dont think that makes me "radical"? I am an ethical Vegan, but have always been interested in Nuclear power.
Many of these future Nuclear projects have very different outcomes. I am not qualified to talk about these issues, I would love to hear from those who are. Like Genetic Engineering, I am interested in the THEORY, but the PRACTISE is very different...and very dangerous... just think of all the past nuclear leaks, radiation, the pollution, the stockpiling of waste...
Recently I heard about Sellafield in England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield
Very scary stuff, it sounds like the people living around this facility are shit scared, and so I can understand "NIMBY", Not In My BackYard complaints for future sites. In particular, the talk of plant leaks, and "In 2007 an inquiry was launched into the removal of tissue from a total of 65 deceased nuclear workers, some of whom worked at Sellafield.[41] It has been alleged that the tissue was removed without seeking permission from the relatives of the late workers."
I have a friend from Ukraine, and I think we all know what happened there...such scaremongering is hard to avoid on the issue of Nuclear Power.
Think of me, a person living in a small country of four million, doing just fine WITHOUT Nuclear power options, what would you do to convince the average NZer that Nuclear Fission is NECESSARY? I think its best not to buy into the pipe dream of Nuclear Fusion until its actually practical, right now, its no different than the "Arc reactor" from Ironman, or Fusion experiments by Doctor Octopus from Spiderman 2! Just because its in movies, and popular Sci Fi, does NOT mean it will be powering my iMac anytime soon!
I'm very interested in learning from people who are *ACTUALLY* educated on this topic. Would anyone here like to explain the best course for future progress? IE, what is to be done with all the sealed Nuclear Waste currently piling up, how realistic is Nuclear Fusion, especially in our lifetimes (I'm 22), and what about Renewable energy sources?
Thank you for your time.
---
You are going to get fucked up.
The sun does not have to shine 24 hours a day. The solution is piss-easy: Double the size of your solar power plant, and use the excess energy to pump water upwards into a reservoir. Then at night let it flow downwards again. :)
There. Done.
The combination of solar thermal power plants and those reservoirs is already in construction in all of Europe. I think it’s unbeatable in that the energy source is endless (about 5 billion years), and the whole thing can be built solely out of the most abundant materials on earth (iron, aluminium, glass,... that’s nearly it.) It’s cheap too. And can be placed as places nobody (not even animals and plants) want to live anyway.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Its taken 50 years and trillions of dollars and billions of man hours of work to accomplish that. It sure as hell isn't easier scaling things down.
And what happens when your netbook doesn't provide enough computational power to get a job done? That's right, you get a bigger computer with more power. Its a lot cheaper to buy 10 more netbooks than it is to get a desktop processor even smaller.
Nuclear fusion is pretty much a potential infinite source of clean electrical energy and we have 2 options to try to master plasma confinement long enough to harvest that energy. One is investigated with ITER and the other is the inertial confinement.
Third is inertial electrostatic confinement - Busard's polywell, Elmore-Tuck-Watson, Farnsworth-Hirsch, ...
Fourth is dense plasma focus - Lerner, Mather, ...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There's still room for a much bigger crisis.
A few variations.
Anti-science fundamentalist:
Indeed: some of these people are going to die having spent their entire lives not achieving communion with God. So I'd rather trust the thoughts of some random Christian than a 'top scientist'.
Idiot voter:
Indeed: some of these people are going to retire having spent their entire careers not achieving something I understand. So I'd rather trust the thoughts of someone I know than a 'top scientist'.
Elitist scientist:
Indeed: all of these Slashdot posters are going to die having spent their entire lives not achieving anything of note. So I'd rather trust the thoughts of someone well-studied than a 'top poster' who's achieved nothing of substance after spending seven-hundred thousand hours masturbating and playing video games.
It's hilarious how you put "building working fusion reactors" so... casually.
You'd "trust" an unknown person. But trust is something earned. And the fact that you expect a Slashdot poster to even comparatively measure up to a notable scientist is demonstration of why humans have made so many inane mistakes throughout history.
Oh, yes. There is also recent evidence (characteristic triple-tracks in plastic detectors) that the "cold fusion" style deuterium-tritium ion loading of palladium actually does produce fusion under some as yet undetermined set of additional conditions.
This might be a sign of a practical condensed-matter solid-state quantum-mechanical system for practical fusion power. (If so, a hypothetical practical device might be analogous to an integrated circuit or a complex semiconductor device like an SCR, triac, or insulated-gate-bipolar transistor, with the experimenters currently at the stage of probing for a hot spot on a galena crystal to make a diode for a crystal-set radio receiver while struggling to come up with a theoretical model explaining the details of the underlying mechanism in a way adequate to design a transistor.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
In this case BIGGER is better. One of the problems with fusion is the breakeven problem, it takes more energy to heat the plasma to fusion temperatures than is being produced by the fusion. Other problems have been the plasma escaping confinement thus cooling the plasma, while simultaneously heating the electromagnets. Bigger has some advantages here, more mass for the hydrogen thus better thermal efficiency and more atoms of deuterium to fuse, more space between the 100 million degree Celsius plasma and the supercooled electromagnets, more room for neutron shielding, keeping things you don't want to become radioactive from the strong neutron flux produced.
Keep in mind that they designed ITER with all that was learned from other earlier Tokamaks experiments. The hope for ITER was 50MW in 500MW out. It was designed to be a power generator.
Where are these convenient, pre-formed, barren valleys? In all of Europe? I doubt it, not everyone here has the space for solar, or enough sunshine to make it worthwhile.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
20 freaking Billion dollars and the Polywell group who has shown just as much progress with WB7 can't get more then $2M in funding by the Navy.
Sad
After 25 years, all they have are thousands of pages of documents, and a cost estimate of $20 billion.
If they had called James Doohan before he went to take charge of the great Warp Engine in the Sky, they could have had a working magnetic containment field (and some hints on where to obtain some dilithium crystals and some antimatter) for the price of a few sheets of transparent aluminum, and a case of high-quality Scotch ...
If we wanted to, we could start operating a bunch more of those fission reactors; they don't necessarily make economic sense given current market prices, but those markets probably don't accurately capture the consequences of other forms of energy production, and fission is certainly still energy positive (and it is probably energy positive to pull uranium out the sea).
Fission or fusion. Don't need either of them. I think nuclear fuels make perfect sense to run submarines, but for consumer use they are unnecessary. Algae biodiesel could supply our entire energy need. And has the added advantage of not making radioactive waste.
Don't get me wrong - if fusion pans out that would be fantastic. I did the math once and figured that you'd need about two olympic sized pools worth of water to separate into hydrogen to fuse into helium to handle north america's energy needs for a year. That would be magnificent. But the best source of power anywhere nearby is the sun.
Here, read this.
Also pretty great.
I would love to see something good that would move us away from the current paradigm of coal and oil.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I found a page at the institutes site which conducted the research project. I'm afraid it's german only: http://www.dlr.de/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1/86_read-13498/ But there seems to be a whole department designated to research these type of heat reservoirs which also puts more effort into further develop storing heat in concrete: http://www.dlr.de/tt/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-4727/7819_read-12192/
It's not shining right now, it is 10pm here. I tried to use the power of positive thinking to stop the Earth's rotation, but have so far been unsuccessful. Measuring 0 volts on my solar panels right now, a pity, I was hoping I was just imagining the darkness.
ps - you don't get to choose a meaning of shine that is nonsense.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
We are still researching better methods to BOIL FUCKING WATER. Seriously folks, atomic batteries are more advanced than the NIF and ITER.
It's entirely possible that we have gone the wrong way in development. Antimatter reactors that could tap the energy release directly still would need energy containment and release technology, even if we talk about mundane fission reactions tapping the energy we still have the problem of containing and distributing the energy.
Also while NIF is funded by DOD modeling a fusion reaction has nothing to do with our atomics they're entirely different reactions.
Solar and wind is great but the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and the wind doesn't blow every day
But the wind is always blowing somewhere, and the sun is always shining somewhere. Sounds like it's an energy transport/management issue.
20 billion is far too much to spend on trying for this sort of tech. The nearly 12 billion spent on MGM's pathetic, half finished flop called City Center in Las Vegas was much better spent, truly.
in just 30 years we'll all be using power generated from Fusion. (When have we heard that before?)
Spokesbossy for ominous cow herds everywhere.
Don't let the magic smoke out of the Earth, say no to geothermal!
Or that laserpointer in your hand.
Geothermal is nuclear. Geothermal energy is ultimately derived from heat, which is produced by radioactive(!) decay(!!) of uranium and thorium in the earth's crust. As a result, Geothermal = Nuclear.
The radioactive isotopes, which ultimately power geothermal, are releasing DEADLY RADIATION into the environment. It's just like Chernobyl, but deeper.
Geothermal treats the whole crust of the earth like a giant nuclear reactor, for the purpose of generating power from it. DO YOU WANT TO LIVE ATOP A GIANT NUCLEAR REACTOR.
Geothermal requires us to DRILL HOLES in the earth's crust, thereby bringing water and DEADLY RADIATION closer to us. The water from the earth's crust contains measurable amounts of radioisotopes, which have been shown to be harmful to human health if taken in high concentrations.
Geothermal relies on chemicals like Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO). Those chemicals are pumped into the earth to extract heat from it. Those chemicals (DHMO) have been shown to cause chemical burns and death if ingested in high enough concentrations and at the right temperatures.
And we haven't even mentioned the carbon emissions caused by hole-drilling, which is probably even worse than the oft-mentioned carbon emissions from pouring concrete for nuclear reactors. Nuclear power is not carbon-free, as has been pointed out, but NEITHER IS GEOTHERMAL. What about the carbon emissions caused by the transport of construction materials to the geothermal site. What about the methane emitted from the geothermal worker who farts. Methane is a greenhouse gas.
When the Sun does shine, it releases DEADLY RADIATION in sufficient quantities to cause radiation burns on those exposed to it. I personally have radiation burns from standing exposed to a large fusion reactor.
Some environmentalists have been tricked by Big Solar into believing that solar energy is perfectly safe. But, SOLAR IS NUCLEAR. We've been lied to.
Wind power is nuclear power. So is biomass, and composting.
---
The ONLY non-nuclear source of energy is tidal energy. Anything else, and I'll protest.
(Of course, even tidal power is indirectly nuclear. Tidal power is caused by the rotation of the planet, which ultimately was caused by a nuclear explosion billions of years ago. However, tidal power at least doesn't rely on an ONGOING nuclear reaction, like Solar and Wind rely on ONGOING nuclear reactions).
> latest cost estimates for the superconducting behemoth are soaring to nearly 20 billion USD
The ISS was several times that costs, and I still don't see the purpose -- but they got funding.
ITER has the potential to solve THE problems of the 21st century (energy, climate change) and it takes something like one days turnover of the world energy market to see if it works. They wont get the money.
At 20 billion USD the RIAA could buy 75 of these! (if they win their 1.5 trillion dollar suit)
I so don't see why funding would ever be a problem. I mean - if these scientists asked the RIAA nicely, I'm sure they could get their funding. Right?
Are you autistic? You might want to brush up on your sarcasm, savant-boy.
Dear Mr. Anonymous Coward,
With regard to your dumbass thought of wanting to kill yourself over and over, we wish to inform you, you retarded bastard idiot you, that we have indeed fucking well thought of that already, viz, cheerfully providing you and the rest of the world with thousands of nuclear weapons over the past 65 years.
Bestest regards,
United Mad Scientists of the World
Uranium will be gone too in about hundred years, and faster if everyone builds more plants in reaction to peak oil.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
This looks promising:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127131654.htm
http://www.grcrun11.gr - MUDA tribute
and no mention of Thorium. Cheap, non-polluting, no breakthroughs needed - just engineering.
Anti nuclear environ*MENTAL*ists are an existential threat to the ability of the human race to maintain a state of civilization, and an intolerable impediment to progress. They should be destroyed as a political force. With extreme prejudice. Using any amount of force necessary.
Quote: "ITER is a massive con trick, a licence to print money for the 'experts' involved in this disgraceful waste of millions of people's money. It's OUR money, stolen from us as 'taxes', to pay for a project which 99% of us do not want."
ITER is a Tokamak. There are 33 Tokamaks operating now, I think. (See the list.) Tokamaks are easy enough to build that enthusiasts have built them in their garages. None of them ever produced more energy than it required to run.
Is it logical to be skeptical about Tokamaks? Yes, that is a logically admissible view. So, the parent comment should not be modded down based on that.
I've been thinking why does ITER need to be such a massive beast. The size is HUGE.
Why couldn't the same principles work on a scale of, say, a milk carton? Why does it need to be the size of a football stadium?
Proving the tech on a smaller scale should also work. And it should also be able to produce energy. And, it should be easier to mass produce too!
Where are these convenient, pre-formed, barren valleys? In all of Europe? I doubt it, not everyone here has the space for solar, or enough sunshine to make it worthwhile.
Well there is this one in Michagan USA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant But it wasn't pre-formed
it was like that when I got here.. I wasen't here when that happened... second shift musta done that....
Aren't they "Beyond Petroleum" now?
And this would be way beyond petroleum.
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
Several projects to investigate fusion are currently underway. Many of them cost significantly less than $1B. Hobbyists do fusor-type projects everyday in their garages and basements, though with no hope of net power. The Polywell project was revived a few years ago and has been making progress.
Forgot to account for latitude, but that shouldn't affect it normally by more that a factor of 1/sqrt(2)
I live in central Finland, you insensitive clod. The attenuation at 63 N barely exceeds 1/sqrt(2) at noon in midsummer. It's more like 1/20 in midwinter at noon, and the 24 hour average attenuation below 1/150 because the sun vanishes almost as soon as it appears. Solar power is missing here when it's most needed (winter).
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
the wind doesn't blow every day
I see you're not living in the same place I am :)
Uum, so I imitate parent poster and while he gets +5 Funny, I get -1 Troll? Double standard much?
And he’s not even right. While I am. Or is that your criteria: “I can’t stand facts, so I’ll repress them by modding them down.” ;)
Typical crab mentality.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Read all about it here.
Seastead this.
Obviously, an ideal power generation technology would be one that neatly scales from "smart dust" to "dyson sphere" and everything in between; but we are still waiting for the magic pony to deliver that one.
Solar cells do that. DSSC's on the low end and conventional aSi on the big end. Having no moving parts makes things scale a little more easily.
Maury
> Solar and wind is great but the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and the wind doesn't blow every day
Again, solar + wind + hydro + gas peakers + (a national grid) = all the power you need for totally reasonable prices.
What is "totally reasonable prices"? Well the most expensive of those is wind at $13 a watt installed, the rest scale down with solar ~$4, hydro around $2 and gas at about $1.2. Net cost across all sources is maybe $5, about the same as existing nuclear plants (USD).
Maury
The reaction stops all by itself. If you're going to argue against nuclear fission, please base your arguments against current designs.
No it doesn't. Good fission reactor designs can be made safe by creating a negative coefficient between temperature and reaction rate. Yet the fission reaction continues because uranium is unstable. Which is why bad and dangerous reactor designs are possible. You need regulation to make sure people aren't building them.
A bad fusion reactor on the other hand simply doesn't produce any power, because the reaction actually stops. That's why regulation isn't a concern.
We should be building fission reactors -- oh look, I'm arguing for nuclear fission! -- but the difference between them and fusion reactors (aside from one existing) is a simple fact that it does no good to ignore.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'm all for combination of technologies to overlap one another and provide a viable power system. Just solar or just wind isn't really going to work, but it can supplement another primary source and can compliment each other. (Where I grew up it would be a strong constant wind at night, but not so much during daylight hours)
So destroy local ecosystems with hydro? I think I'd take a nuke plant over that, even though hydro is currently much cheaper to build than a fission reactor.
Also, you don't need gas peakers if you have nukes. Because you can generally scale the generation of a nuclear reactor to meet peak demand.
But generally you're right, diversifying power generation investments is the smart way to go. Just like diversifying any other sort of investment.
I want to build a steam powered SUV, and run it on wood from virgin forests.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It probably has something to do with you being an unfunny douchebag.
BTW your sig is lame and I am cooler than you
That link - ick.
Such pessimism, for starters.
Taking a concept top the extreme and then complaining of the extreme - classic strawman?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
There are well-conceived alternative fusion concepts that can be cheaper than NIF and ITER behemoths. http://www.crossfirefusor.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/overview.html
I will submit my plans for reactor that runs on 100% pure Anti-nuclear environmentalists.
Either it will run forever or we'll try out that ITER thingy.
Win-WIn.
So now we have 'environmentalists' who are opposed to research into a completely clean energy source that would require sea water as fuel and leave helium as waste. Presumably in favour of covering the planet in windmills. Well at least windmills don't have any nasty sounding words in their name like 'nuclear'. Some of them are bound to be smart I suppose, but you only ever seem to hear about the morons.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Anybody here feeling vicious?
Please, if you have some technical skill, some time and a sense of justice, I humbly ask that you take a moment to hack this site and delete its content with DOD-7 wiping
Oh, and http://uggkey.com/ is another one..
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
It is time to halt this boondoggle before it sucks up precious taxpayer dollars which are so desperately needed to help the ever-growing underclass of people living in poverty.