France Will Get Fusion Reactor

[DaveinOlyWA]

France Will Get Fusion Reactor.

PARIS, June 28 - An international consortium announced Tuesday that France would be the site of the world's first large-scale, sustainable nuclear fusion reactor, an estimated $10 billion project that many scientists see as crucial to solving the world's future energy needs.

well this would definitely go a long way towards solving the hydrogen supply problem...

[DanMan32]

I didn't think a practical/efficient cold fusion reaction had been developed even conceptually yet.

Solving the hydrogen problem? Isn't fusion the making of helium from fusing hydrogen atoms?

[bookrats]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DanMan32\";p=\"102469)</div>

I didn't think a practical/efficient cold fusion reaction had been developed even conceptually yet.
[/b]

I don't think a practical/efficient fusion reaction, period, has been developed yet. (Wasn't cold fusion basically a pipe dream?)

[jayman]

I read that blurb on Yahoo and noticed it was a VERY long term goal, maybe up to 50 years away.

The EU is fronting 40%, the United States 10%, China 10%, Japan 10%, and Russia 10% (Maybe discounted to Rubbles or whatever).

It's nice they're trying though.

[Canuck]

50 years????...... perhaps my 2005 Prius will be due for a replacement by then and I'll buy one of those new fandanged powered machines. Oh, well, the anticipation is worth the wait ( as Yogi Berra might have said)

[prius04]

Sounds like a good idea but lets analyze this.

First of all, this is not cold fusion. Scientists understand fusion quite significantly. And many scientists, though not all, feel that the fusion reaction can be controlled safely. However, what is not known is whether fusion can be controlled safely and economically!!!

Fission is how current reactors work. The fission reaction of splitting atoms has been found to indeed be controllable, but it produces dangerous radioactive waste. Fusion is not supposed to do that. It is supposed to make lots of energy CLEANLY.

Now, does this boast about the cleanliness (and safety) of fusion sound a little bit like the fission reactor boast from the 1950's that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter?

This consortium is paying $10 billion for this experimental plant in France. Now lets not forget the billions in overruns on the Chunnel between France and England. Thus I think it is safe to suggest that this fusion reactor in France is much more likely to cost $50 billion. Can you imagine if that kind of money was spread out around the world looking for better conservation of energy, as well as wind/ solar and tide power?

But aren't the words "spread out" the central key to this question?

I've argued before that the issue over what gets the money and the backing for study and implementation has less to do with the scientific feasibility of any energy source, than in the business model that allows for profits from that energy source being "concentratable". When you spread out the research, and therefore spread out the science, you also spread out the profits, potentially to millions of people. A true breakthrough in solar power such that everyone had a power plant on their home roof, and roof of their car, would badly damage the current business models of the profits from the creation of energy being concentrated into the hands of a few over the many.

But when you centralize the creation of power, whether that be in fusion or fission or even in oil, gas or coal fired plants, you centralize the profits into the hands of a smaller group, ie in this case, a "Consortium".

And I would contend that this is why this plant is being considered. NOT for the science at all, but for the continued centralization of the production of power.

And who knows, maybe this project will result in someone figuring out how to perfect small portable fusion reactors that run on "cold fusion". I doubt it, because if everyone had their own power plant, how can profits be centralized. But if they do, maybe there will be a market again for old Deloreans.

[Mike Lane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"102517)</div>

This consortium is paying $10 billion for this experimental plant in France.  Now lets not forget the billions in overruns on the Chunnel between France and England.  Thus I think it is safe to suggest that this fusion reactor in France is much more likely to cost $50 billion.[/b]

The cost of the Chunnel has nothing to do with the cost of this project. You can't logically conclude that there will be cost overruns on this project because of cost overruns on another absolutely unrelated project.

[prius04]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mike Lane\";p=\"102521)</div>

The cost of the Chunnel has nothing to do with the cost of this project.  You can't logically conclude that there will be cost overruns on this project because of cost overruns on another absolutely unrelated project.[/b]

I find your naivete charmingly refreshing.

Seriously, I did not mean to compare the cost overuns of the Chunnel to this project. What I meant to compare was cost overuns at this point in world history to traditional cost overuns that always occur for all projects.

And the current formula seems to be to multiply the original estimate by a factor of 5.

And if you count the war in Iraq and the boondoggle that Hallibuton got, that factor might be closer to 8.

[Darwood]

I would have to agree that:
1) there will be overuns.
2) this is an attempt to prevent an inevitable switch to decentralized power.

Then again, if they can succeed, great. A successful fusion reactor would be better than fission. I'm not so sure I want an experimental reactor in my town though.
The problem is, we'll be out of oil in 50 years and the resulting crises will make the whole point moot. Unless of course we go the route of decentralized renewable/alternative power and switch to electric cars, and etc. and get it all in place BEFORE the oil runs out.

[KTPhil]

Just imagine how much MORE progress the US alone could have made had it chosen to invest $400B in fusion instead of VietNam Revisited?