Fusion Nuclear Reactor to get the Green Light

Soldato
Joined
29 Jun 2004
Posts
12,957
BBC News said:
Fusion reactor work gets go-ahead

Seven international parties involved in an experimental nuclear fusion reactor project have initialled a 10bn-euro (£6.8bn) agreement on the plan.


The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter) will be the most expensive joint scientific project after the International Space Station.

Wednesday's agreement in Brussels gives the go-ahead for practical work on the project to start.

Fusion taps energy from reactions like those that power the Sun.

The seven-party consortium, which includes the European Union, the US, Japan, China, Russia and others, agreed last year to build Iter in Cadarache, in the southern French region of Provence.

Cleaner energy

The parties say fusion will lead to a cheaper, safer, cleaner and endless energy resource in the years ahead.

"We represent more than half of the world's population, and recognise 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 that the participants would aim to ratify their agreement before the end of the year so construction on the facility could start in 2007. Officials said the experimental reactor would take about eight years to build. The EU is to foot about 50% of the cost to build the experimental reactor, with the six other parties contributing 10% each.

If all goes well with the experimental reactor, officials hope to set up a demonstration power plant at Cadarache by 2040.

In a fusion reaction, energy is produced when light atoms - the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium - are fused together to form heavier atoms.

To use controlled fusion reactions on Earth as an energy source, it is necessary to heat a gas to temperatures exceeding 100 million Celsius - many times hotter than the centre of the Sun.

The technical requirements to do this, which scientists have spent decades developing, are immense; but the rewards, if Iter can be made to work successfully, are extremely attractive.

Investment costs


One kilogram of fusion fuel would produce the same amount of energy as 10,000,000kg of fossil fuel.

Fusion does produce radioactive waste but not the volumes of long-term high-level radiotoxic materials that have so burdened nuclear fission.

Officials project that 10-20% of the world's energy could come from fusion by the end of the century. However, environmental groups have criticised the project, saying there was no guarantee that the billions of euros 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. "Giving billions of euros to a single nuclear project that is so far from reality is ill judged and irresponsible."

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

The Cadarache site is also expected to 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 US and South Korea wanted the facility built at Rokkasho in northern Japan.

Japan withdrew its bid after agreeing to a bigger role in research and operations.

The Cadarache site lies about 60km (37 miles) inland from Marseille, and has been a nuclear research centre ever since President Charles de Gaulle launched France's atomic energy programme in 1959.

Source BBC News


Guess that British guy who hacked into NASA and the US Intellegence wasn't lyeing about better, newer, cleaner fuel :)
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Jan 2005
Posts
8,429
Location
leeds
strange, i thought they aggreed this last year and were already building it.

anyway, its good news, but only in 100 years time - we still have to figure out alternatives until then.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2005
Posts
9,679
I have seen programs on this sort of thing before. (although this story is news to me).

They basically said although possibly, at the moment it requires ore enery to get it working than it produces.

Unsure how valid that is but it would make sense as its a relatively new tech and fusing atoms takes mamouth amounts of energy.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2004
Posts
9,086
Location
Berkland
"Investment in energy efficiency and renewables is the only reliable way to guarantee energy security," said Silvia Hermann, from Friends of the Earth Europe. "Giving billions of euros to a single nuclear project that is so far from reality is ill judged and irresponsible."

There is no pleasing some people! :rolleyes:
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2006
Posts
9,572
Good (as long as it doesn't blow up/site for terrorist attack.)

Nuclear fules are the future, build some nuclear plants until then.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Sep 2005
Posts
10,001
Location
Scottish Highlands
oweneades said:
I have seen programs on this sort of thing before. (although this story is news to me).

They basically said although possibly, at the moment it requires ore enery to get it working than it produces.

Unsure how valid that is but it would make sense as its a relatively new tech and fusing atoms takes mamouth amounts of energy.


As said in another recent thread about this, I have been following this project for some time now. The theory for a Nuclear fusion plant is all sound, its just getting it to actually work. So far they have only managed to keep the reaction going for 5 seconds(Doesn't sound much, but is infact a big step forward) and the reaction uses far more energy than it creates. However if this eperimental reactor works as planned(I see no reason why it shouldn't) Then we can expect to see lots of relatively cheap and very clean energy.
 
Associate
Joined
15 Jun 2004
Posts
756
"Investment in energy efficiency and renewables is the only reliable way to guarantee energy security," said Silvia Hermann, from Friends of the Earth Europe. "Giving billions of euros to a single nuclear project that is so far from reality is ill judged and irresponsible."

This kind of attitude irritates me. The author of this statement clearly has no concept of the differences between fusion and fission.

Regardless of the fact that a properly built fission reactor is inherantly safe*, the uninformed seem to assume that the same percieved dangers apply to fission. If a fusion reactor were to lose the containment of the plasma the worst that would happen is it would melt the reactor. More likely is the reaction would just cease. Fusion require some very special conditions to occur, fission will just run away with itself unless controlled very carefully.

Fusion is inherantly safe because unlike fission, if you leave it to its own devices (when on a non-solar scale) it will simply stop. It should also be noted that there can be NO heavy radioactive elements produced by a fusion reactor, as the binding energy curve peaks at lead, meaning anything heavier than lead is not made.

In addition to that fact, fusion is one of the only renewable energy sources that is globally applicable, in every environment, and hence is clearly a sensible method to research.

* (for reasons such as gravity assisted control rods, that fall into the reactor by gravity if there were to be any kind of faliure, hence stopping an explosion)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom