Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Europe puts France up for reactor (world's 1st fusion reactor will cost $5bil, revolutionize energy)
BBC News ^ | Wednesday, 26 November, 2003 | Dr David Whitehouse

Posted on 11/26/2003 7:15:03 AM PST by presidio9

The European Union has chosen France as its preferred location for a nuclear reactor that scientists hope will revolutionise world power production. It will cost billions to build the fusion machine which releases energy in a similar way to the Sun's furnaces.

Scientists say the new reactor will be the first such prototype to give out a lot more power than it consumes.

International partners in the immense engineering project include the US, China, Japan, Russia and Korea.

Well placed

A final decision on the siting of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter) should come in December at a meeting of officials involved in its planning.

The EU candidate, Cadarache, in southeastern France, is likely face stiff competition from Rokkasho in Japan.

The plant, wherever it is constructed, is expected to generate thousands of jobs.

Spain had initially put forward its own choice of Vandellos but then fell in line with its EU partners when research ministers agreed it could host the administrative headquarters for the European arm of the Iter project.

Europe believes it stands a good chance of hosting the fusion plant.

>A recent report, chaired by Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to the UK Government, said "either (European) site would be likely to win the international site selection".

Star power

The Iter project is the latest stage in the decades-long quest to develop fusion power.

In conventional nuclear power plants, heavy atoms are split to release energy. But in a fusion reactor, energy is harnessed by forcing the nuclei of light atoms together - the same process that takes place at the core of the Sun and makes it shine.

Advocates say commercial fusion plants of the future could be cheap to run and environmentally friendly, with much less radioactive waste produced.

However, developing the necessary technology is proving very expensive and time-consuming.

To use fusion reactions 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. At these temperatures, the gas becomes a plasma.

Under these conditions, the plasma particles, from deuterium and tritium, fuse to form helium and high speed neutrons.

A commercial power station will use the heat generated by the energetic neutrons, slowed down by a blanket of denser material (lithium), to generate electricity.

The fuels used are virtually inexhaustible. Deuterium and tritium are both isotopes of hydrogen. Deuterium is extracted from water and tritium is manufactured from a light metal, lithium, which is found all over the world.

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

Iter would be the world's largest international cooperative research and development project after the International Space Station.

Its goal will be to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for 500 seconds or longer during each individual fusion experiment and in doing so demonstrate essential technologies for a commercial reactor.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Germany; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: energy; france; fusion; nuclearpower
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: RightWhale
America could be so far ahead in almost every area of science and technology that the rest of the world would need to hire scouts to see which way we went. But instead we are keeping just barely ahead. Got to wonder why. Maybe there is a good reason.

Your answer is right on this thread. The sniveling luddites who don't think it's worthwhile to spend money on what will be the greatest technoligical advancement in history because, well, we can't do it (no reason why, just that we can't).

41 posted on 11/26/2003 1:04:03 PM PST by Two_Sheds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The European Union has chosen France as its preferred location for a nuclear reactor

"Because everybody hates the (deleted) French, anyway, so we don't care if they have FLKs."

42 posted on 11/26/2003 1:07:04 PM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
It seriously ticks me off that the Greens have managed to kill reactor construction here, yet France can build as many as needed.

Maybe the oil companies discretely support the Greenies financially therefor keeping the needed for oil in place.

43 posted on 11/26/2003 1:14:19 PM PST by Major_Risktaker (Did you have more freedom in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's or today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
Hey we are also ponying up a half a billion for the HLP at CERN.
44 posted on 11/26/2003 2:19:21 PM PST by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: js1138
This could be as revolutionary as Japan's 10 billion dollar fifth generation computer language that revolutionized data processing a decade ago.

"Today, France has 54 civilian nuclear energy plants, heavily supported by the state. They produce more than three-quarters of France's electricity and more than half of its total energy. France also exports close to $3 billion worth of its annual energy production to countries like Britain, Italy and Switzerland."
( http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/02/F.RU.990222143820.html )

45 posted on 11/26/2003 5:20:34 PM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/fusor/bigsys3.html

If it's BS, it's expensive BS...
46 posted on 11/26/2003 5:51:42 PM PST by Axenolith (<TAG>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Everyone should keep in mind that the
total (not just the US's contribution)
cost is comparable to ten space shuttle flights.
The Physicists seem confident that this big
machine will have a 'power gain' (Q) of at least ten.
If that term means thermal-power out, divided by
beam power-in, that should be slightly above
'electrical' break even.
47 posted on 11/26/2003 9:46:55 PM PST by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson