[img]http://www.physicscentral.com/blog/images/logo.gif[/img]
[url=http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010/09/construction-underway-at-iter.html]Source[/url], [url=http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/09/15/2144240/Construction-of-French-Fusion-Reactor-Underway?from=rss]Source 2[/url]
[release]They say fusion is 50 years away. There were those who also said it was 50 years away two decades ago.
Either way, this week marks a significant date in whatever history fusion energy might have. Digging has begun at the ITER (thermonuclear was a bad word, so there's no loner an acronym) site in the south of France for the facility's Tokamak building. A tokomak is a torus shaped magnetic confinement device which is necessary to withstand the temperatures associated with fusion that are so high, solid materials can't hold them. As such, the building represents the future core of ITER.
The construction start comes after decades of research, bureaucracy, politics infused debates and massive cost increases. In fact, the estimated cost has already tripled. Yet, a contract agreement was reached in May of this year that paved the way for digging to finally begin - 25 years after efforts towards an international thermonuclear fusion reactor were first crafted.
From Fusion for Energy (EU branch of ITER):
[quote] Working is really picking up – the first excavation works for the complex Tokamak building on the ITER site have now started. This is a major step forward after the signature of contract... The start of the excavation works demonstrates that the F4E (aka Fusion for Energy) contribution of buildings is progressing full speed ahead and on schedule. In tandem, development of the tender design for all the other buildings that are part of F4E’s contribution to the ITER project is also being carried out. [/quote]
While the ITER folks are showing optimism about the start of construction on the facility, even many physicists are skeptical of the reality of the thing.
MIT Professor Michael Driscoll told the Moscow Times:
[quote] "It's possible that it can be done from the scientific point of view, but I think the economics are going to be quite troublesome."The radiation damage inside the thermonuclear reactor — a machine that is also known as a "tokamak" — would be so huge it would require replacing the expensive surrounding first wall, which faces the high-temperature plasma, every few years, Driscoll said. Another problem is material for high-temperature-resistant superconducting wires to make magnets for the ITER, he said.[/quote]
For more details of the construction check out ITER. Anatoly Medetsky of The Moscow times has a very in-depth recent piece about the issues facing the future of the technology and the ITER project as well.
Here's to hoping physicists don't dig anymore holes they can't fill. [/release]
This will be amazing once it's finished.
One can hope!
Get a mingebag to blow it up.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCh8m9usNZ0&feature=related[/media]
[editline]09:40PM[/editline]
So long, France!
eeeeeeeexcellent
Gah I live too close to france. I don't want to die :(
[QUOTE=Jallen;24858309]Gah I live too close to france. I don't want to die :([/QUOTE]
A tokomak reactor is intrinsically safe. There is a very small amount of fuel burning at any one time, 1 or 2 grams. An accident might blow up the reactor, but no Chernobyl poisoning of the land for decades. Also the waste is relatively safe when compared to fission reactor waste. Having a half life of only Decades instead of Millennia. I hope to work on this project in a few years time.
Stupid Hollywood making people fearful of fusion reactors with their bullshit science :argh:
Wow. Damn.
If there was to be a REALLY miniature version of this, would laser, plasma and such weapons be theoretically possible? Such things require a lot of energy, so could this be the answer? Well, we'd of course need something to spew the plasma from the barrel, and we'd also need something that the plasma wouldn't damage to build the chamber and barrel from, but still?
Just asking.
[QUOTE=Jallen;24858309]Gah I live too close to france. I don't want to die :([/QUOTE]
Don't worry, fusion reactors are extremely safe, there's no nuclear reaction that takes loads of water to stop, fusion reaction stops the moment the reactor it turned off.
The worst that can happen is the massive magnets that hold the reaction inside the reactor to shoot off like cannon balls, that's nothing compared to the worst that can happen to a nuclear reactor.
[QUOTE=RalphMoors;24858460]A tokomak reactor is intrinsically safe. There is a very small amount of fuel burning at any one time, 1 or 2 grams. An accident might blow up the reactor, but no Chernobyl poisoning of the land for decades. Also the waste is relatively safe when compared to fission reactor waste. Having a half life of only Decades instead of Millennia. I hope to work on this project in a few years time.[/QUOTE]
To elaborate the reason why theres still radioactive material even though the fusion reaction doesn't use or generate radioactive elements itself: from what I read, 'normal' nuclear fission power is still required to get the fusion reaction going, so there's still some radioactive material used in the whole process.
I have high hopes for fusion reactors. They're still extremely difficult and costly to build, but they have a practically unlimited supply of fuel, no harmful waste, and an enormous energy output.
I've admired France's strides in energy production.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;24858911]I've admired France's strides in energy production.[/QUOTE]
Same. Sometimes I'd wish the Dutch government here put the money they waste on military hardware in energy research instead.
I moved to France recently, going to visit the reactor.
fuck yea science :colbert:
Hurr durp gonna blow up world!
Problem is, they're forging away at this even though it's extremely costly. The article points out that the estimated cost [i]tripled[/i] since the project started, and includes a quote from an MIT professor expressing his concern over the massive cost.
Even if such a project is completed and does output energy, is it really going to be cost effective in the long run?
ITER isn't French. France on it's own has neither knowledge nor resources to build such a project on their own. It's international effort of many nations, with the main participant being EU, with others being mainly USA, Japan and Russia.
[QUOTE=thirty9th;24859031]Problem is, they're forging away at this even though it's extremely costly. The article points out that the estimated cost [i]tripled[/i] since the project started, and includes a quote from an MIT professor expressing his concern over the massive cost.
Even if such a project is completed and does output energy, is it really going to be cost effective in the long run?[/QUOTE]
Meh, they can build shops and hotels around it for those no nuclear power and other types of freaks.
[quote=wiki]ITER (originally the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)
Currently there are seven parties participating in the ITER program: the European Union through the legally distinct organisation EURATOM, India, Japan, People's Republic of China, Russia, South Korea, and the United States of America (USA).[4] The host member, and hence the member contributing most of the costs, is the EU (through its Fusion for Energy organisation). However Japan is also a privileged partner (see History).
[b]Canada was previously a full member, but has since pulled out due to a lack of funding from the Federal government. The lack of funding also resulted in Canada withdrawing from its bid for the ITER site in 2003.[/b]
[/quote]
Canada you slackers :argh:
Finally this thing is being constructed. I first heard about it when I was checking out the smaller fusion reactor here in New Jersey, they has some model and diagram of it that shows what it looks like and how big it is. If this thing works, then we will have similar reactors all over the world, generating enough power that will make the other reactors look like a child's plaything.
Man, I love science!
[QUOTE=thirty9th;24859031]Problem is, they're forging away at this even though it's extremely costly. The article points out that the estimated cost [i]tripled[/i] since the project started, and includes a quote from an MIT professor expressing his concern over the massive cost.
Even if such a project is completed and does output energy, is it really going to be cost effective in the long run?[/QUOTE]
I think it's needed. It's way over budget and schedule, but it's the next logical step in Tokomak fusion research. It may be the beginning of commercial fusion energy production, and if that ever happens, all the fusion research will be worth every penny.
That said, there may be a huge breakthrough in laser inertial confinement reactors and make all this Tokomak research practically useless. Either way you have to explore all viable technologies to find the right way to proceed.
[QUOTE=Jallen;24858309]Gah I live too close to france. I don't want to die :([/QUOTE]
Fusion won't kill you, all that will happen is the fusion reaction stops and the power goes out til it gets restarted.
That's it, it's probably the safest method of power generation possible.
[QUOTE=bravehat;24859425]Fusion won't kill you, all that will happen is the fusion reaction stops and the power goes out til it gets restarted.
That's it, it's probably the safest method of power generation possible.[/QUOTE]This is probably true. Something like a natural gas plant is way more dangerous.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;24858506]Wow. Damn.
If there was to be a REALLY miniature version of this, would laser, plasma and such weapons be theoretically possible? Such things require a lot of energy, so could this be the answer? Well, we'd of course need something to spew the plasma from the barrel, and we'd also need something that the plasma wouldn't damage to build the chamber and barrel from, but still?
Just asking.[/QUOTE]
If you could somehow miniaturise this and give it a steady supply of gasses then you could make a proper plasma cannon.
And that shit would be fucking glorious, able to melt through just about anything since it's a bolt of ionised gas at 4000 or so degrees, or is it 10,000 for hydrogen fusion?
Or is it higher? :sigh:
[QUOTE=RalphMoors;24858460]Also the waste is relatively safe when compared to fission reactor waste. Having a half life of only Decades instead of Millennia. I hope to work on this project in a few years time.[/QUOTE]
I thought the waste was a stable isotope of helium..?
[QUOTE=Novangel;24859659][img_thumb]http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/040701/171957__smbq_l.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
That movie was shit
They don't even know how feasible the generator really is as a power supply. Many scientists are very sceptical about it. It may end up not generating a surplus of energy at all.
This will be interesting.
Are there any pics of the building site?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
