Yes, there is the potential for accidents at a fusion power plant, but the scale of the damage/danger is much less than you're probably thinking. The article you linked mentions tritium leaks, lithium fires, and release of "magnetic energy". Tritium leaks can easily be contained if the building is properly designed. Lithium fires would damage the reactor, but not result in danger to the surrounding community. As for the "accidental release of magnetic energy," I can only assume they're talking about what happens when a plasma dies abruptly. If I remember correctly, the sudden absence of the plasma's magnetic field causes the tokomak to "jump" and can potentially cause electrical damage. So this would also only affect the reactor and not the surrounding community.
Basically, the difference (safety-wise) between fission and fusion is that fission is a runaway process, whereas fusion requires a large amount of energy/control/effort to keep it going. The easiest way to stop a fusion reaction is to cut off its fuel. A fusion reactor requires constant addition of deuterium/tritium to keep the reaction going. By simply cutting off the source of fuel, the reaction would naturally stop. You don't have to worry about the power plant exploding or having a nuclear meltdown when dealing with fusion.
You'd be talking about the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). PPPL is home to several fusion experiemnts, both current and future. In fact, I used some data from PPPL's National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) during a summer internship a few years ago. If I remember correctly, the tokomak shape for ITER is based on some of the results that the NSTX produced. I really don't think you have to worry about PPPL being shut down anytime soon. According to the website, they're starting work on a new test reactor to be built in the next few years.
Additionally, fusion reactions/plasmas can be halted (with no ill effects) simply by injecting some heavier elements into the plasma, such as shooting pellets of frozen neon into the tokomak. The situations required to form and maintain a plasma are very specific, and disruptions simply stop the reaction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty much the only thing that happens when the plasma suddenly stops is that occasionally the tokomak tries to "jump" when the plasma's magnetic field suddenly disappears.
The only way that we can ever make fusion commercially viable is if we do build things like ITER. As for the timescale, if the US fusion programs were properly funded, there would probably be a lot more progress toward reaching the goal of having fully functional fusion power plants. However, I don't want to get into issues of funding.
To say that ITER is just about "engineering and acquiring knowhow" shows that you are simply ignorant about all that is and will be going on with the project. There will be a great deal of information on large plasmas produced at ITER that cannot be produced anywhere else, since ITER will be the largest fusion tokomak ever built. Learning how larger plasmas behave in real-life situations instead of computer simulations is definitely on the list of information that I would like to know before building a real reactor. Additionally, developments made at ITER, both in fundamental science and engineering carry over to such things as propulsion systems for space exploration, large scale information management (Do you realize how much information is produced during a 1 sec. test on a tokomak?), materials science, and other fields. No, to say that ITER is "just about engineering and acquiring knowhow" shows that you just don't understand: Much of science is about building devices (of whatever kind) to test your theories, obtaining additional knowledge, and then refining your theories and tests.
Do some real reading about what you call a "waste of money" before you write it off as such. There are lots of fringe benefits to tokomak-based fusion research that you simply don't get with pulsed laser fusion. However, given the potential benefits from having functional fusion power plants, I think both strategies should be researched to their full potential. Just because I don't know a whole lot about pulsed laser fusion doesn't mean that I'm going to just write it off as expensive and unproductive (which is what my limited knowledge tells me). I would have to learn a lot more about it before being able to justify doing that.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean that's wrong? Now I bet you're gonna tell me that 6 * 9 != 42.
You mean that stuff like this doesn't happen in real life?
Michael Bolton: You haven't even been showing up for work, and you got to keep your job.
Peter Gibbons: Actually I'm being promoted.
Yes, there is the potential for accidents at a fusion power plant, but the scale of the damage/danger is much less than you're probably thinking. The article you linked mentions tritium leaks, lithium fires, and release of "magnetic energy". Tritium leaks can easily be contained if the building is properly designed. Lithium fires would damage the reactor, but not result in danger to the surrounding community. As for the "accidental release of magnetic energy," I can only assume they're talking about what happens when a plasma dies abruptly. If I remember correctly, the sudden absence of the plasma's magnetic field causes the tokomak to "jump" and can potentially cause electrical damage. So this would also only affect the reactor and not the surrounding community.
Basically, the difference (safety-wise) between fission and fusion is that fission is a runaway process, whereas fusion requires a large amount of energy/control/effort to keep it going. The easiest way to stop a fusion reaction is to cut off its fuel. A fusion reactor requires constant addition of deuterium/tritium to keep the reaction going. By simply cutting off the source of fuel, the reaction would naturally stop. You don't have to worry about the power plant exploding or having a nuclear meltdown when dealing with fusion.
You'd be talking about the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). PPPL is home to several fusion experiemnts, both current and future. In fact, I used some data from PPPL's National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) during a summer internship a few years ago. If I remember correctly, the tokomak shape for ITER is based on some of the results that the NSTX produced. I really don't think you have to worry about PPPL being shut down anytime soon. According to the website, they're starting work on a new test reactor to be built in the next few years.
Additionally, fusion reactions/plasmas can be halted (with no ill effects) simply by injecting some heavier elements into the plasma, such as shooting pellets of frozen neon into the tokomak. The situations required to form and maintain a plasma are very specific, and disruptions simply stop the reaction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty much the only thing that happens when the plasma suddenly stops is that occasionally the tokomak tries to "jump" when the plasma's magnetic field suddenly disappears.
Deuterium is or can be generally extracted from seawater. Look here for simple fusion info.
The only way that we can ever make fusion commercially viable is if we do build things like ITER. As for the timescale, if the US fusion programs were properly funded, there would probably be a lot more progress toward reaching the goal of having fully functional fusion power plants. However, I don't want to get into issues of funding.
To say that ITER is just about "engineering and acquiring knowhow" shows that you are simply ignorant about all that is and will be going on with the project. There will be a great deal of information on large plasmas produced at ITER that cannot be produced anywhere else, since ITER will be the largest fusion tokomak ever built. Learning how larger plasmas behave in real-life situations instead of computer simulations is definitely on the list of information that I would like to know before building a real reactor. Additionally, developments made at ITER, both in fundamental science and engineering carry over to such things as propulsion systems for space exploration, large scale information management (Do you realize how much information is produced during a 1 sec. test on a tokomak?), materials science, and other fields. No, to say that ITER is "just about engineering and acquiring knowhow" shows that you just don't understand: Much of science is about building devices (of whatever kind) to test your theories, obtaining additional knowledge, and then refining your theories and tests.
Do some real reading about what you call a "waste of money" before you write it off as such. There are lots of fringe benefits to tokomak-based fusion research that you simply don't get with pulsed laser fusion. However, given the potential benefits from having functional fusion power plants, I think both strategies should be researched to their full potential. Just because I don't know a whole lot about pulsed laser fusion doesn't mean that I'm going to just write it off as expensive and unproductive (which is what my limited knowledge tells me). I would have to learn a lot more about it before being able to justify doing that.
Reminds me of a movie:
Walter Sobchak: Those rich fucks! This whole fucking thing... I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this fucking strumpet--
The Dude: I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.
Walter Sobchak: Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.
The Dude: Walter, face it, there isn't any connection.