Nations agree to build fusion reactor

[theski]

Not sure if this should be here..

but damm good start though..

Nations agree to build fusion reactor:

The European Union, the United States, Japan, China, Russia and others initialed a $12.8 billion agreement Wednesday to build an experimental fusion project they hope will lead to a cheaper, safer, cleaner and endless source of energy.

The seven-party consortium, which also includes India and South Korea, agreed last year to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, in Cadarache, in the southern French region of Provence.

The consortium hopes to develop the new technology saying it will help move away from the global dependency on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Fusion reproduces the sun's power source and produces no greenhouse gas emissions and only low levels of radioactive waste.

"We represent more than half of the world's population, and recognize that by working together today we stand a much better chance of tackling the challenges of tomorrow, so energy is an issue of concern for all of us," said EU Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik after the ceremony.

He said participants will aim to ratify their agreement before the end of the year so construction on the facility can start in 2007. Officials said the experimental reactor will take about eight years to build.

The EU is to pay about half the cost to build the experimental reactor, with the six other parties contributing 10 percent each.

If all goes well with the experimental reactor, officials hope to set up a demonstration power plant in Cadarache around 2040. Officials project that 10 percent to 20 percent of the world's energy could come from fusion by the end of the century.

Environmental groups slammed the project as "ill-judged and irresponsible," saying there was no guarantee that the expense would result in a commercially viable energy source.

"Investment in energy efficiency and renewables is the only reliable way to guarantee energy security," said Silvia Hermann, from Friends of the Earth Europe.

The European Commission said the investment was justified, adding that the technology used in such fusion reactor plants would be "inherently safe, with no possibility of meltdown, or runaway reactions."

The EU head office said the fuel consumption of a fusion power station would be lower than present day coal-fired power plants, which emit harmful emissions that damage the environment.

The EU has also said that the Cadarache site will boost Europe's role in developing new technologies and is likely to create about 10,000 jobs.

The consortium had been divided over where to put the test reactor, and competition was intense. Russia, China and the European Union wanted it at Cadarache, while Japan, the United States and South Korea wanted the facility built at Rokkasho in northern Japan.

Tokyo backed down after agreeing to a bigger role in research and operations.

Cadarache already houses one of the biggest civil nuclear research centers in Europe

Yahoo

[Darth Wong]

It would be excellent if they could pull it off sometime during my lifetime. As much as I oppose the anti-nuke fearmongers and the pie-in-the-sky alternative-fuel people, nuclear fission is not exactly the ideal fuel source. Uranium mining is dangerous and toxic work, and the fact that nuclear fission reactors require/produce materials which are potentially useful for nuclear weapons programs is unsettling.

[Molyneux]

That sounds pretty sweet; it's always good t'hear about major multinational cooperative projects, too. It's one stabilizing factor in terms of foreign relations, or at least so I would think...

And it's 'bout damn time we started working in earnest towards viable fusion power.

[Zero]

I don't get why the fuck environmentalists would oppose fusion power. There are going to be moderate amounts of radioactive materials produced, but these don't have the same kinds of half lives as radioactive materials produced by fission plants, so the waste storage won't need to last for several millenia. There really is also no way for a runaway chain reaction or a meltdown to occur in a fusion plant, because at any given time, there's only about 2 minutes worth of reactant in the tokamak thingy. It also would only release He gas into the atmosphere, and helium gas isn't exactly a very reactive species, so there isn't any real damage done by it.

Do they just oppose anything with the world 'nuclear' in it, or what? They have to understand that all the renewable sources of energy that they support are of limited usage... don't they?

[Old Peculier]

How are things like this usually funded? Taxes? Private research investments? A combination, or by some other means?

Also, I have been, and will continue to watch ITER with interest, and a degree of patience.

[Darth Wong]

I don't get why the fuck environmentalists would oppose fusion power. There are going to be moderate amounts of radioactive materials produced, but these don't have the same kinds of half lives as radioactive materials produced by fission plants, so the waste storage won't need to last for several millenia. There really is also no way for a runaway chain reaction or a meltdown to occur in a fusion plant, because at any given time, there's only about 2 minutes worth of reactant in the tokamak thingy.

More importantly, the instant anything fails the reaction will stop, literally within milliseconds. That's because it's so difficult to maintain the reaction in the first place; if containment is lost then the reaction dies almost instantaneously.

It also would only release He gas into the atmosphere, and helium gas isn't exactly a very reactive species, so there isn't any real damage done by it.

Do they just oppose anything with the world 'nuclear' in it, or what? They have to understand that all the renewable sources of energy that they support are of limited usage... don't they?

No they don't. Most of them assume that "natural" means "endless and harmless", when neither of those beliefs is valid. That's why there's such a push for things like biodiesel and ethanol; it is perceived to come from "natural" sources and should therefore be completely ecologically harmless according to their mindset.

[Zero]

More importantly, the instant anything fails the reaction will stop, literally within milliseconds. That's because it's so difficult to maintain the reaction in the first place; if containment is lost then the reaction dies almost instantaneously.

I don't know much about this yet, but from what I've read, they have to heat hydrogen gas to 15 billion degrees to start the fusion reaction, and at this temperature, it's plasma, which is contained using magnetic fields, right? So does it stop because of how much the plasma would cool down if it expanded, which is what happens if the containment stuff fails? I'm curious, and I'm considering doing a project on ITER soonish.

No they don't. Most of them assume that "natural" means "endless and harmless", when neither of those beliefs is valid. That's why there's such a push for things like biodiesel and ethanol; it is perceived to come from "natural" sources and should therefore be completely ecologically harmless according to their mindset.

So they don't actually understand the technologies they're trying to push for? It should seem obvious that wind technology can only be effective in windy areas, that solar cells can only be effective in areas with good sunlight and few clouds, that there's a limited amount of space where this technology can fit... is it just willful ignorance on their part?

[K. A. Pital]

That's because it's so difficult to maintain the reaction in the first place; if containment is lost then the reaction dies almost instantaneously.

Exactly. But the popular notion of fusion power = very dangerous still lives. I was laughing my ass off when I saw that "fusion" reaction in SpiderMan 2, but then it struck me that some people might actually think that way.

[Darth Wong]

I don't know much about this yet, but from what I've read, they have to heat hydrogen gas to 15 billion degrees to start the fusion reaction, and at this temperature, it's plasma, which is contained using magnetic fields, right? So does it stop because of how much the plasma would cool down if it expanded, which is what happens if the containment stuff fails? I'm curious, and I'm considering doing a project on ITER soonish.

IIRC it's more like 50 million K, not 15 billion K. And temperature alone is not enough to initiate fusion; you need confinement, ie- you need to squeeze the plasma together so that there are a lot of ions in a small space. Release that and the reaction dies immediately, no matter how hot the plasma is. In the Sun's core, confinement is achieved via the crushing pressure of gravity from overlaying mass (so much so that the density of solar core plasma is something like 13 times the density of lead if I recall correctly). In a hypothetical Tokomak reactor, confinement is achieved electromagnetically (and the reaction still needs to be "juiced" by the use of deuterium and tritium rather than plain hydrogen).

So they don't actually understand the technologies they're trying to push for? It should seem obvious that wind technology can only be effective in windy areas, that solar cells can only be effective in areas with good sunlight and few clouds, that there's a limited amount of space where this technology can fit... is it just willful ignorance on their part?

You'll find that the majority of people who think this way are just disinterested in science. They learn it the same way Trekkies do: they just want to learn barely enough to satisfy their pet interests, not because they genuinely like science. And so they inevitably end up taking pieces of science out of context and thinking that this is all they need to know.

[drachefly]

It'll cool down a LOT. Unplanned dumping is bad for the reactor in the sense that some or a lot of expensive equipment is wrecked; it's not bad for it in the sense that things go boom.

[Darth Wong]

It'll cool down a LOT. Unplanned dumping is bad for the reactor in the sense that some or a lot of expensive equipment is wrecked; it's not bad for it in the sense that things go boom.

Actually the heat content in a fusion reactor's plasma is not enough to do serious damage. It would probably destroy the interior lining but that stuff has to be periodically replaced anyway. The amount of reactant mass in there is very small; it's not like the big heavy tubes of dense uranium in a fission reactor.

[Zero]

IIRC it's more like 50 million K, not 15 billion K. And temperature alone is not enough to initiate fusion; you need confinement, ie- you need to squeeze the plasma together so that there are a lot of ions in a small space. Release that and the reaction dies immediately, no matter how hot the plasma is. In the Sun's core, confinement is achieved via the crushing pressure of gravity from overlaying mass (so much so that the density of solar core plasma is something like 13 times the density of lead if I recall correctly). In a hypothetical Tokomak reactor, confinement is achieved electromagnetically (and the reaction still needs to be "juiced" by the use of deuterium and tritium rather than plain hydrogen).

So have we actually discovered yet if the energy it takes to confine the plasma is actually worth the energy output gained from fusion?

Thanks, by the way. This is useful information for finding more info...

[kheegster]

So have we actually discovered yet if the energy it takes to confine the plasma is actually worth the energy output gained from fusion?

Thanks, by the way. This is useful information for finding more info...

We know that in principle fusion reactions can take place. It's what powers the Sun and all the stars in the Universe. We also know that the deuterium-tritium fusion reaction which is proposed for ITER takes place, since it has already been achieved in existing reactors. And IIRC break-even has already been achieved by JET.

The point of ITER is to investigate the techniques and technology required to carry out operations with sustained energy output.

[kheegster]

Thanks, by the way. This is useful information for finding more info...

Try http://iter.org and http://www.jet.efda.org.

[Darth Servo]

No they don't. Most of them assume that "natural" means "endless and harmless", when neither of those beliefs is valid. That's why there's such a push for things like biodiesel and ethanol; it is perceived to come from "natural" sources and should therefore be completely ecologically harmless according to their mindset.

What do those idiots say when its pointed out that nuclear fusion is the most natural source of energy in the universe and is the ultimate source of all energy here on Earth?

[drachefly]

It'll cool down a LOT. Unplanned dumping is bad for the reactor in the sense that some or a lot of expensive equipment is wrecked; it's not bad for it in the sense that things go boom.

Actually the heat content in a fusion reactor's plasma is not enough to do serious damage. It would probably destroy the interior lining but that stuff has to be periodically replaced anyway. The amount of reactant mass in there is very small; it's not like the big heavy tubes of dense uranium in a fission reactor.

Yes, it's not going to destroy the reactor; but the interior surface of the ITER is anything but armor-plated. There are hosts of sensors to detect the exact state of the plasma, and those can be damaged or destroyed. This is the expensive equipment I was referring to.

[drachefly]

What do those idiots say when its pointed out that nuclear fusion is the most natural source of energy in the universe and is the ultimate source of all energy here on Earth?

Well, be fair -- we can't build a fusion reactor that is as well shielded as the sun: the fusion reactor in the sun is shielded by the entire rest of the sun! That's so well shielded it takes over ten thousand years (perhaps much more, I forget) for light to get out.

And also, it happens to be an AU from anyone's back yard.

So it's still pretty dumb, but that isn't why.

[Darth Servo]

What do those idiots say when its pointed out that nuclear fusion is the most natural source of energy in the universe and is the ultimate source of all energy here on Earth?

Well, be fair -- we can't build a fusion reactor that is as well shielded as the sun: the fusion reactor in the sun is shielded by the entire rest of the sun! That's so well shielded it takes over ten thousand years (perhaps much more, I forget) for light to get out.

And also, it happens to be an AU from anyone's back yard.

So it's still pretty dumb, but that isn't why.

The POINT was nuclear fusion is perfectly natural despite claims to the contrary from those environmentalist retards.

[Sriad]

No they don't. Most of them assume that "natural" means "endless and harmless", when neither of those beliefs is valid. That's why there's such a push for things like biodiesel and ethanol; it is perceived to come from "natural" sources and should therefore be completely ecologically harmless according to their mindset.

What do those idiots say when its pointed out that nuclear fusion is the most natural source of energy in the universe and is the ultimate source of all energy here on Earth?

I disagree, shoving something down a gravity well so that PE=>KE is more natural still! Fusion is only a consequence of the stars' initial coalescence.

I propose, therefore, that we solve mankinds energy problems by dropping the Moon on Earth.

[Duckie]

I disagree, shoving something down a gravity well so that PE=>KE is more natural still! Fusion is only a consequence of the stars' initial coalescence.

I propose, therefore, that we solve mankinds energy problems by dropping the Moon on Earth.

Genius! We'll drop it on a gigantic bellows, and use the air from both the shockwave and the bellow to run a huge ring of unobtanium windmills around the impact site! Electricity for all- forever!

[Darth Wong]

It'll cool down a LOT. Unplanned dumping is bad for the reactor in the sense that some or a lot of expensive equipment is wrecked; it's not bad for it in the sense that things go boom.

Actually the heat content in a fusion reactor's plasma is not enough to do serious damage. It would probably destroy the interior lining but that stuff has to be periodically replaced anyway. The amount of reactant mass in there is very small; it's not like the big heavy tubes of dense uranium in a fission reactor.

Yes, it's not going to destroy the reactor; but the interior surface of the ITER is anything but armor-plated. There are hosts of sensors to detect the exact state of the plasma, and those can be damaged or destroyed. This is the expensive equipment I was referring to.

The interior of the reacting will contain a lining which is slowly eaten away by the neutron and ion flux from the plasmoid even under normal operations. I'll have to look up the heat content of the plasmoid, but I recall it was surprisingly small.

[Guardsman Bass]

Well, it's about time they got the ITER project going. I remember reading about 8 years back that the first ITER reactor was supposed to be finished and running (meaning it is producing more power output than power put into it to heat and contain the plasma) by 2010.

It seems like 2015-2020 is probably a more reasonable date, according to the construction. We can still hope that, if it goes well enough, we might have a few commercial fusion plants by 2050. You may still be alive by then, Wong, particularly with better medical technology.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The interior of the reacting will contain a lining which is slowly eaten away by the neutron and ion flux from the plasmoid even under normal operations. I'll have to look up the heat content of the plasmoid, but I recall it was surprisingly small.

I believe the ITER or JET site mentions the lifespan of the internal reactor panels which absorb and go brittle (not to mention radioactive) from excess neutron bombardment. Using He3 would get around this problem, but it's rare here, so we use D+T for now, which is a medium on the energy output, but gives off those annoying neutrons.

As for damage when losing containment, it really depends on how dense a plasma ring you had going and the thermal energy of such a plasma. Most testbeds would just cool off and do nothing, but I expect a city powering plant would cause much more to happen.

In anycase, even if we get net energy output tomorrow, it may still be decades until the first viable civilian or even military plants. Fusion is vastly more complex and expensive than fission and even fission reactors require highly trained technicians and engineers and years to build, to say nothing of the cost. You can forget vehicle based systems for a while too, given the size of ITER and even JET. When the stuff is fully understood, we may just get our sci-fi vision, but I wouldn't put it past yet more eco-nuts condemning the idea, because y'know, a few panels of irradiated metal with a few years half-life is going to end the world. The irony is most fossil fuels putting out more radiation in aerosolised form to boot, and then green power systems being blots on the landscape or just useless. One litre of hydrogen, just think of that opening to Chain Reaction (but be ready to shootdown the explosion thing, they were extracting hydrogen en masse in that film).

[fgalkin]

No they don't. Most of them assume that "natural" means "endless and harmless", when neither of those beliefs is valid. That's why there's such a push for things like biodiesel and ethanol; it is perceived to come from "natural" sources and should therefore be completely ecologically harmless according to their mindset.

We should point out to them that fusion power is "natural" because the Sun does it

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Dennis Toy]

WOW! i hope i am still alive when this is produced. I will actually be 61 years of age when this happens.

One question.

Will this take a lot of energy to start the reaction, confine the reaction using a magnetic containment field and to keep the reaction going? From what i heard, you will still need to use fossil fuel energy to get this thing started.