France, Six Nations Sign Accord on $12.9 Billion Iter Reactor

[KashifAsrar]

France, Six Nations Sign Accord on $12.9 Billion Iter Reactor

By Tom Cahill

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- France, the U.S. and five other nations signed a 10 billion euro ($12.8 billion) agreement to build an experimental nuclear-fusion reactor that one day could replace conventional nuclear power plants.

The U.S., South Korea, China, India, Japan, Russia and the European Union agreed to finance and share the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, at a ceremony at France's Elysees Palace in Paris today.

France, which operates 58 nuclear reactors, fought hard to host the project in southern France, winning out over Japan. French companies including Areva SA, the world's biggest maker of nuclear reactors and Alstom SA, a maker of power stations, will compete with companies such as Toshiba Corp., General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co. to build the project.

`` If nothing changes, humanity will have devoured in 200 years the basic fossil fuels accumulated during hundreds of millions of years, triggering a climactic earthquake,'' French President Jacques Chirac said, after a ceremonial signing of the accord. ``We are duty-bound to take these steps for our dependence.''

The project's funds will be invested over 40 years, half of which will be spent on construction in the coming decade.

``There's a lot at stake,'' said Raymond Orbach, undersecretary for science at the U.S. Department of Energy. ``We will have enough energy for the whole world if it works. What we're talking about is 30 years from now power from this flowing into the grid. Skepticism is well-placed, but we think it's worthwhile trying.''

New Sources

The project is aimed at harnessing new sources of energy based on nuclear fusion that have less waste than nuclear power and emit no greenhouse gasses.

Fusion, the process that powers stars, could be cheaper and safer than fission, the action at the core of contemporary nuclear power plants. ITER members say uniting the atoms of lighter elements such as hydrogen instead of splitting heavier ones such as uranium generates more energy, less radioactivity.

The experimental reactor in France is expected to lead to a prototype reactor that all nations can draw from in building fusion reactors to deliver electrical power.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tom Cahill in Paris at tcahill@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: November 21, 2006 03:50 EST


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aZEENGT8yrJI&refer=europe

 

[MIG_ACE]

I've always been a little scared of Oil running out. Hope this thing succeeds.

 

[Keysersoze]

Experimental fusion reactor?

How can you build something when the theory (for cold fusion) has not even been proved? The last time I had heard about Fusion the guy was discredited........

If anyone has any links regarding this i would appreciate it.

 

[Keysersoze]

Hey how about that! There was a program on the tv about this....

Apparently the running joke is that we are 40 years away from commercial fusion power and always have been

The reactor will start 20 yrs of research on the subject.......

 

[KashifAsrar]

But what is IMPOSSIBLE about this idea? To me a controlled fusion reactor is possible, provided a fission reaction can be subtely controlled, which is highly possible in a lab environment. If it can be done with precision and efficiency in a secure enviorenment then we are there. Fossil fuel would run out of bussiness.
Kashif

 

[niaz]

Experimental fusion reactor?

How can you build something when the theory (for cold fusion) has not even been proved? The last time I had heard about Fusion the guy was discredited........

If anyone has any links regarding this i would appreciate it.

They are not saying 'Cold Fusion'. The accord is on thermonuclear, the reaction that powers our sun, basically it implies that they want to build a reactor with controlled fusion ( Hygrogen bomb) as opposed to normal reactor where controlled fission ( Atomic bomb) reaction takes place. If a controlled fusion reactor can be built, it would certainly remove the objections the people have against atomic reactors. Such a reactor would be clean ; no radio activity and no waste disposal problem. It is still along way away but no reason with sufficient effort it can't be achieved.

 

[sigatoka]

To me a controlled fusion reactor is possible, provided a fission reaction can be subtely controlled, which is highly possible in a lab environment. If it can be done with precision and efficiency in a secure enviorenment then we are there. Fossil fuel would run out of bussiness.
Kashif

This shows a lack of understanding, how exactly are buses, cars, planes and ships going to run on Fussion power.

Also coal is so damn cheap (which lets not kid ourselves is what Fusion power is going to compete with) and lets put this in perspective, nuclear fission power plants of TODAY struggle to compete with coals power plants (dont believe me? Tell me one nuclear power plant that has been built by market forces alone without massive government subsidies and/or insurance cover for catastrophere) then how will Fusion Power plants compete with coal when these first power plants will undoubtedly cost more than even the Fission power plants of today?

The billions being spent on this new Fusion would be better spent on gold plating on toilets, at least people would then know where the billions were going.

 

[KashifAsrar]

This shows a lack of understanding, how exactly are buses, cars, planes and ships going to run on Fussion power.

I never said that buses, car etc, would be running on fusion power ! You are quick to jump to conclusion.

Also coal is so damn cheap (which lets not kid ourselves is what Fusion power is going to compete with) and lets put this in perspective, nuclear fission power plants of TODAY struggle to compete with coals power plants (dont believe me? Tell me one nuclear power plant that has been built by market forces alone without massive government subsidies and/or insurance cover for catastrophere) then how will Fusion Power plants compete with coal when these first power plants will undoubtedly cost more than even the Fission power plants of today?

Any fusion reactor would provide you the electricity and that too on cheap rates. There are battery run cars two wheelers running in my country. When the electricity would become cheper and plentiful then these auto-mobiles can be made to consume more electric power to run more.
Electric energy can be converted to do almost any thing now a days.

It is the installation cost that is higher, not the operating cost. Its is vice-versa with coal or gas plants.

The billions being spent on this new Fusion would be better spent on gold plating on toilets, at least people would then know where the billions were going.

Your choice dear.
Kashif

 

[niaz]

This shows a lack of understanding, how exactly are buses, cars, planes and ships going to run on Fussion power.

Also coal is so damn cheap (which lets not kid ourselves is what Fusion power is going to compete with) and lets put this in perspective, nuclear fission power plants of TODAY struggle to compete with coals power plants (dont believe me? Tell me one nuclear power plant that has been built by market forces alone without massive government subsidies and/or insurance cover for catastrophere) then how will Fusion Power plants compete with coal when these first power plants will undoubtedly cost more than even the Fission power plants of today?

The billions being spent on this new Fusion would be better spent on gold plating on toilets, at least people would then know where the billions were going.

No doubt coal is cheap but you need so much additional investment to meet the new enviromental laws that flue gas and waste water treatment requires nearly as much investment as rest of the plant. This is the reason that coal fired power plants are no longer in fashion. New laws everywhere limit the sulphur emmissions, even India has a limit of 0.035 % (350 ppm) on diesel fuel against max 1% ( 10,000 ppm) in Pakistan and only 10 ppm in Europe.

Apart from the fact that fossil fuels will eventually run out ( not in our lifetime), Green Lobby is getting more powerful by the day. From Global Warming point of view; Atmoic Energy is very clean. There are two problems; danger from radioactive leakage and problem of disposal of waste which may remain radio active for hundreds of years. True, Atomic power plant is expensive to build, thermonuclear power initial cost would be much higher, however without the probelms associated with the atomic power.

But can one quantify the cost to the evironment? Would we want to leave a world, too polluted to live, to our grandchildren because we want cheap electricity now??

In my opinion, all investemnt in scientific research is worthwhile. BTW, there are commercial atomic power plants running in the US. My previous company ESSO ( Now Exxon) built four of them in the 70's purely on commercial basis.

 

[MIG_ACE]

Coal is also a fossil fuel which WILL eventually run out one day. And that will be preceded by a steady increase in prices.The fusion reactor is not going to be fully operational b4 another 40-50 years.Its an investment for the future.
We cant start digging the well after we are thirsty.

 

[sigatoka]

1. No doubt coal is cheap but you need so much additional investment to meet the new enviromental laws that flue gas and waste water treatment requires nearly as much investment as rest of the plant.

2. Apart from the fact that fossil fuels will eventually run out ( not in our lifetime),

3. Atmoic Energy is very clean.

4. Atomic power plant is expensive to build, thermonuclear power initial cost would be much higher, however without the probelms associated with the atomic power.

5. But can one quantify the cost to the evironment? Would we want to leave a world, too polluted to live, to our grandchildren because we want cheap electricity now??

6. In my opinion, all investemnt in scientific research is worthwhile. BTW, there are commercial atomic power plants running in the US. My previous company ESSO ( Now Exxon) built four of them in the 70's purely on commercial basis.

1. And even still with these additional costs coal is cheaper. (and if not then gas fired plants are still cheaper than nuclear)

2. This argument is used a lot. If you are driving a car, there is a bend 2 km up the road, does it make sense to reduce speed drastically now? Or to wait closer to the bend and then slow the car?

In thirty years time coal, oil and gas will probably be more expensive, at that point of time it would make sense to build more fission reactors. To build it now is truely to put the cart before the horse, you endure massive pain now (because nuclear fission requires govt to tax profitable activities to dole out to this industry) on the basis that energy prices will rise thirty years in the future. Let me put it another way, lets assume you are 50 years old, you go out and buy a funeral casket for your death at 80, its not very sensible becasue you've tied down funds in an unprofitable project when you could have done much better by ploughin that resource into investment when time came for funeral not only would you be able to afford casket but you would have been able to consume more goodies in your life along the way.

3. Fission energy is clean, exactly then why is 13billion being dumped down the toilets to replicate the exact same thing?

4. My god, the economics just do not add up. Please just try and see it rationally.

5. The world already has the Kyoto protocol which prices carbon (that is you need to pay for the right to pollute a ton of carbon). If climate change is considered a problem, tighten the quantity of cabon permits issued per year, (which will force up price to pollute) and then if nuclear power plants are economic they will be built. Currently with carbon trading, nuclear power plants still require massive doling out by government.

6. All research is worthwhile but because in the world we have constraints on resources, researching this bumpkin idea means that less resources is available for vaccines for malaria, HIV, T.B. and other such much more worthwhile research. So all research is worthwhile, but some much more than others.

Calling something commercial doesnt make it commercial. The States and Federal govt. offer insurance guarantees (whether explicitly or implicitly) for catastrophere and becasue the markets are regulated they guarantee purchases at set prices over very long periods that would not be possible in competitive markets. This insurance cover, guarantees and (other many such inducements) have ensured that these commercial deals are anything but commercial.

 

[Keysersoze]

They are not saying 'Cold Fusion'. The accord is on thermonuclear, the reaction that powers our sun, basically it implies that they want to build a reactor with controlled fusion ( Hygrogen bomb) as opposed to normal reactor where controlled fission ( Atomic bomb) reaction takes place. If a controlled fusion reactor can be built, it would certainly remove the objections the people have against atomic reactors. Such a reactor would be clean ; no radio activity and no waste disposal problem. It is still along way away but no reason with sufficient effort it can't be achieved.

Yeah sorry i was having a "slow" moment lol........
The physical factors are a limiting factor to containing the fusion though. Especially conataining the plasma at the temperatures required. But no science is bad science!

Fission is not a clean source of energy! sheesh i would have thought that was obvious with the various problems in the world.

 

[vnomad]

3. Fission energy is clean, exactly then why is 13billion being dumped down the toilets to replicate the exact same thing?

4. My god, the economics just do not add up. Please just try and see it rationally.

Fission energy is only sort of clean. It producing highly dangerous waste products. That is not a problem with the fusion reactor which will produce helium as the end product.

The energy produced in a fusion reaction is massive. Fission is nothing compared to a fusion reaction. So, theoretically a fusion reactor should be way better economically than any hydel, thermal or nuclear(fission) power plant.

Who knows, in the future maybe anti-matter will work out to be better than a fusion reactor.

 

[Keysersoze]

Economics would suggest that a moon program would be a total waste of time.

However the number of developments that arose from it were huge..and benefited everyone....

If we listened to accountants all the time there would be no advancement in the world....

 

[sigatoka]

1. Economics would suggest that a moon program would be a total waste of time.

2. However the number of developments that arose from it were huge..and benefited everyone....

3. If we listened to accountants all the time there would be no advancement in the world....

1. I never said the moon program was a waste (even if the manned apollo program was)

2. How was having man jump up and down on the moon contribute much? And what if the trillion dollars spent on the manned mission have been used in developing new vaccines, drugs and into improvements into renewable energies?

3. I am not against funding innovation, however it must be recongnised that funding one research program always means another one is being foregone (since we dont have infinite resources), all im saying is that this Fussion research is a big black hole where 13 billion is dissapearing which could be used in so many other productive areas and funding so many other research programs.