Slashdot Mirror


Experts Urge US To Continue Support For Nuclear Fusion Research (scientificamerican.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: A panel of 19 scientists drawn from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recommended yesterday that the Department of Energy should continue an international experiment on nuclear fusion energy and then develop its own plan for a "compact power plant." A panel of 19 scientists drawn from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recommended yesterday that the Department of Energy should continue an international experiment on nuclear fusion energy and then develop its own plan for a "compact power plant."

But as the National Academies' report noted, major challenges must be overcome to reach these goals, beginning with how to contain and control a burning "plasma" of extremely hot gas, ranging from 100 million to 200 million degrees Celsius, that can produce more heat than it consumes. The report calls the resulting plasma "a miniature sun confined inside a vessel." The world's biggest experiment intended to create and draw energy from burning plasma is under construction at Cadarache, France. It's called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, and its centerpiece is a large, doughnut-shaped, Russian-inspired reactor called a tokamak. Several member nations have already developed their own national programs, and the assembled National Academies experts concluded that the United States should eventually follow, once the ITER experiment shows there are ways to contain and manipulate a sustained fusion reaction. "It is the next critical step in the development of fusion energy," says the report.

5 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Ignition by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hopefully the Europeans can get it to work, but they're already spending the money, so why does the US have to

    Owning that technology seems monumentally valuable.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  2. Re:Another great reason not to worry too much by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It sounds like you're saying we don't need to worry about our current CO2 outputs because technology will just come along that solves the problem effortlessly.

    If only. Managing CO2 atmospheric levels is a difficult problem whose solution spans geography, cultures, economies, political systems ... it's not just about technology. Leaving it all up to The Invisible Hand of technological progress is wishful thinking that we just can't afford. We need to make plans and set goals.

    Scientists and engineers have been trying to get a fusion reactor to work for decades. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a working fusion reactor in our lifetimes. But it's a mistake to depend on a technology that is, however worthy, still not viable yet. Wind, solar, tide, geothermal -- and yes, nuclear fission -- are all proven technologies that are not perfect but are viable now.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  3. Re:Endless examples, just look around by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The predictions of "Lost in Space", "2001 A Space Odyssey", "The Jetsons" etc etc had all failed to materialise."

    I think you deliberately left out "Brave New World" and "1984" because those _have_ come true.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  4. Re: I am sure it's 20 years away by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um... a fusion reactor canâ(TM)t explode. If you lose containment of the plasma it dissipates and you need to restart your reactor.

    Fusion is hard. Fission is trivially (and therefore dangerously) easy.

  5. Re:Ignition by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Disclaimer: I work in close proximity and collaboration with a DOE-funded fusion research center.

    Fusion research has progressed significantly scientifically speaking, we can repeatedly trigger fusion reactions now, the only problem is input v. output (we still put more in than out) but everything else, containment etc. is pretty much figured out. The power differential is a hard problem made only harder by regulations on the fuels necessary. There are various fusion sites in the US that can't even get their hands on the fuels that have been delivering higher yields and if you've never worked with DOE - trying to hire or replace an employee can take 2-3 years, everything else that's done (hey we think we'll get better yields with a $10,000 modification or "let's replace that computer") can take ages as well.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com