The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 9

[Roadbridge]

The European Union, Japan, the U.S., Russia, China and South Korea have chosen France to be the home of an experimental nuclear fusion reactor that's worth $13 billion.

This reactor is supposed to be a source of cleaner energy while making it more as well. The technology could lead to less use of fossil fuels that pollute the environment.

The reactor is called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). It is supposed to produce the same type of energy as that of the sun and other stars.

Nuclear fusion is said to produce minimal amounts of toxic waste, and no greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming. Bloomberg News explains:

Fusion, the process that powers stars, could be cheaper and safer than fission, the action at the core of contemporary nuclear power plants. Uniting the atoms of lightweight elements such as hydrogen instead of splitting apart heavier elements such as uranium produces much more energy with a fraction of the radioactivity.

The six members of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, which means ``the way'' in Latin, agreed in Moscow today to build the facility in the southern French city of Cadarache, rather than Rokkasho-Mura, the Japanese location favored by the U.S. and South Korea.

"We are dealing with the question of how to address sustainable energy in the future," said the European commissioner for science and research, Janez Potocnik. "And fusion looks very promising."

It may be 50 years before the project actually becomes commercially useful according to some people that are opposed to the project. It will take 10 years to build anyway.

Could this be the answer?

 

[GregLocock]

Sure. It could be. Certainly worth investigating, and I doubt that industry is prepared to spend a couple of decades to find out.

Bear in mind that it will still generate a lot of hazardous waste - the entire facility will slowly become radioactive.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[johnwm]

Interesting to compare 'hazardous waste' output from ITER, PWR and conventional coal-fired:

http://www.iter.org/index.htm

Good Luck
johnwm
________________________________________________________
To get the best from these forums read faq731-376 before posting

UK steam enthusiasts:

http://www.essexsteam.co.uk

 

[p11100]

I seem to recall they split the atom when they were pushed to it, so why not this.
I thick future oil shortages will spur on the politicians and they’ll be no shortage of money for it.

 

[moltenmetal]

Sorry to burst the bubble, but there's no technological fix to the world's energy woes. Not fusion, not hydrogen and fuelcells, not biofuels- there's no single magic bullet out there.

Until people at large stop hoping for the magic technological fix that will let us keep doing what we're already doing, and until politicians and technological snake-oil salesmen stop selling it to them, people won't get down to the only real, sustainable, long-term solution: reducing consumption.

Technology, and engineers, have LOTS to offer in this regard. And there's no need to spend billions in the hope of inventing something magical in fifty years to get it done- we can do it now with existing technology. Remember that fusion ALREADY has a fifty year history BEHIND it.

 

[GregLocock]

OK mm. At present the 1/10 of the world's population that is called "First world" use about 32 times as much energy each as the Third World. That gives total energy useage of about 4.1 arbitrary units.

In the next twenty years India and China will be trying to move to First World standards of living.

This will increase the number of first worlders by a factor of three. Therefore the energy useage will jump to 10.7

So, you need to start designing systems that are 2.5 to 3 times as efficient as today's. Or reduce your energy consumption by 70%. Or find a new source of energy. Or a sensible mix of the above.

I do not understand why you say fusion won't work. It has worked for billions of years.

I just checked the price of cars. For a typical car in Australia fuel cost is about 16% of the total running cost per km. So why would I give a monkey's about the fuel economy? And this with the most expensive oil ever? (To quote stupid alarmist headlines)



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[jmw]

Interestingly, in my paper amonmg those opposed are Greenpeace.

How's that for irony? I guess they want the money spent on wind turbines instead.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[corus]

Once more..

Greenpeace are not opposed to the idea of fusion reactors per se but argue that it will be 50 years before any benefit might be forthocoming at a time when it is necessary to reduce emmissions now. Given the high cost and unproven technology they argue the money could be better spent elsewhere. Seems a reasonable point of view.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai....xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/29/ixworld.html

My understanding of the current technology is that so far they haven't been able to produce more energy froma fusion reactors than they put into it. Just because it works in the centre of the sun doesn't mean that it's easy to do here on Earth.


corus

 

[moltenmetal]

Yes, Greg, we'll be choking on our own filth unless we do something sensible with respect to energy consumption. We're choking on our own filth NOW, and the development of the so-called "Third World" will add to that dramatically.

My point is that we'll have to do things differently than what we're doing now. If that's not also your point, what is your point?

What's my problem with fusion as an energy source? It's hard to do! It's no nearer to feasibility now than it was fifty years ago. My problem with fusion is that it's a distraction from our REAL options- options we can pursue NOW.

My problem with the ITER project and its ilk are that we're going to see billions of government dollars (read my tax dollars and yours) wasted on a megaproject boondoggle when it could be spent actually solving the world's current problems with existing technology!

I'm neither a Green nor a member of Greenpeace, Greg. I'm an engineer and a pragmatist. Our energy needs will increase, even if we seek conservation aggressively- but since every source of energy has some degree of environmental impact, we'd better get serious about conservation NOW.

As engineers we CAN do LOTS to improve the current situation by improving things on both the energy demand AND supply sides. But if people are holding out hope that we'll simply invent our way out of the problem so we can keep doing what we're doing now, there'll be no willingness to do what actually NEEDS to be done NOW.

And your point about the cost of fuel for vehicles is dead right. It points to the fact that the entirety of the costs associated with the production of that fuel are not borne directly by those who consume it. And there are some costs which just plain do not show up in the economic equation now and they MUST do so. Fuel prices MUST rise until they start affecting people's purchasing decisions for automobiles in a significant way. If that has to happen by means of taxation, so be it!

 

[jmw]

I hadn't noticed this new thread when i posted a comment in the KyotoII thread so i will repeat my response to Corus here:

"When do they want the 50 years to start then?
What sort of guarantees do they want?

How will the design problems be solved without spending the money and getting stuck in?

6 billion is a lot of money, to you and me, chump change for Bill Gates and, in a multi national consortium deal probably a whole lot less than is being consumed in subsidies for wind turbines.

Most governments can waste that sort of money on beurocracy without even missing it, they can always get more... from you and me.

Besides when was it ever a case of government funding being either spent on this or spent on that? If the money isn't spent on this do they think it will be wisely spent on what they want? That argument hasn't worked with politicians since the dawn of time."

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Maui]

Anybody remember cold fusion and the ensuing fiasco it caused? Or the failed promises of high temperature superconductors? Or the superconducting supercollider project that ran out of funding during the construction phase? They spent close to 3 billion dollars of our tax money to construct tunnels on this project that are now used as mushroom farms. The ITER is the latest proposed megaexpensive physics project. Instead of spending this enormous amount of money on a single project, I believe that the money would be more wisely spent on several hundred smaller projects that could help us to accomplish the goals of energy conservation, while at the same time studying the feasibility of fusion as a possible alternative energy source. Why would we agree to spend over 10 billion dollars on a single project when they have yet to prove that breakeven is possible? I agree that it would be a very interesting pursuit, but from a financial perspective it is a terrible idea.

Maui

 

[ScottyUK]

Some of you will remember the days before space flight. At the end of the first world war who would have thought that fifty years later men would be walking on the moon? How different would life be today if previous generations had failed to invest in the 'impossible' and the engineers of the time had not risen to the challenge? What if the nay-sayers of yesteryear had cancelled the Mercury or Gemini programmes when problems seemed insurmountable? Is solving problems and developing ideas into working solutions not the very foundation of our profession?

It is disappointing to see so much criticism, from engineers of all people, of a massive investment in civil R&D and engineering. Are these not the exact things we forever curse our governments for failing to do? We should be applauding the decision to build this plant, not deriding it.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[corus]

My understanding of the fusion project is that it has already been underway for the past 50 years and with no success. Certainly it may be worth waiting another 50 years, though given the success so far I'd prefer to see an equal amount spent on other projects as Maui suggests.

As for space flight, yes there were advances made but the only benefits from the project I can recall is teflon coated non-stick pans.

corus

 

[davefitz]

Corus:
You are right- it has served as a 50 year welfare program for nuclear physicists. It seems wasteful at first glance, but it has to be admitted that we will need to provide some form of welfare for several more generations of nuclear engineers, technicians, and physicists simply to ensure that we always maintain a stable of competent persons that are available to deal with the long term maintainence needs of other nuclear technologies.

 

[moltenmetal]

davefitz: so what you're advocating is a welfare program to babysit the previous generation's mistakes?!

just kidding!

Fission power has a lot of drawbacks, not least of which is that it must be a megaproject by its nature. Humans haven't figured out how to run megaprojects efficiently yet, and the economics of such situations make it unlikely we'll ever learn. But just like democracy is "the worst form of government ever invented- except for all the others we've tried", fission may be our best use of finite resources going forward. Far better than mining and dumping the entire historical reserve of fossil fuels in to the atmosphere, along with all the radionucleides trapped therein!

I'm all for pure research. I even support far-reaching development projects like this one- under certain conditions. If we could divert the portion of the U.S. "defence" budget currently spent on the Iraqi war effort into the peaceful use of fusion energy, perhaps I wouldn't be so dead-set against it.

The reality is, the money to support ITER will be obtained by diverting a portion of each nation's existing research and development funding away from smaller, shorter-term and probably far more useful projects. Politicians like megaprojects because it gives them photo-opportunities cutting ribbons and the like- stuff that smaller, more useful but less "sexy" projects don't offer to the same degree.

 

[jmw]

Actually, Schumacher may have been right when he said "Small is Beautiful"

The trouble with politicians is they like to be grandiose and score brownie points by thinking big.

If we were asked what we would want fusion power plants to look like I can bet that it isn't what the politicos propose.

If I had my way they'd target for many millions of individual power plants rather than one giant one with its need for a sophisticated grid; If the one big power plant breaks, we will all die for lack of energy.

I say design them car engine size.

Actually, what do you all think? what would be the three top design features you would want from a modern fission power palnt?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[GregLocock]

By the way, in the context of global research budgets, 13 billion is peanuts. That's roughly what the auto industry will spend next year making sure that you have a DVD player for every passenger, the seats match the carpets, and designing a slightly heavier car to make up for the slightly more efficient engine.

It costs between 1 and 6 billion to design a new car, are you seriously implying that the possible prospect of a long term solution to energy "shortages" is not worth a bit more than that to society as a whole?



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[moltenmetal]

Considering that my nation's tax dollars aren't involved in a significant way, I'm all for it!

But if any of my tax dollars are involved, I know where they'll be coming from: the budgets of projects which are more deserving because they're more likely to yield near-term benefit for people. There's no way they're coming out of the budgets of schools and hospitals.

Yes, this is peanuts in terms of the world's overall spending priorities and economic activity. But believe me, there are any number of worthy purposes to put 13 billion dollars against, and all of them compete with one another on their merits. If the beneficial result is at least fifty years out, and the beneficial result will still be mega-project and hence mega-corporation based, it's not worth much expenditure in terms of where I'd like to see my tax dollars spent.

Moreover, research isn't product development. How much money does the auto industry actually spend on research rather than product development? 13 billion as a measure of the world's government-funded spending on pure research looks a bit less trivial than your comparison would suggest.

 

[PSE]

Well, the US involvement with ITER is currently in jeopardy. According to what I just read in Physics Today, the House of Representatives passed a bill (Energy and Water Development Appropriations) containing an ammendment to kill US ITER funding until (at least) March 2006. The aim apparently to find out where the 1 billion USD would be coming from.

 

[jmw]

PSE,
how quaint. Politics of course, they know as well as you or I that the taxpayer pays, of course.
And why isn't this a concern for politicians when they want to invest in wind farms?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com