Fusion project decision delayed

[muriel_volestrangler]

A decision on where to site the world's first big nuclear fusion reactor has been postponed until next year.

Officials from several countries meeting in Washington were divided on whether to build the international reactor in France or Japan.

The US has been against the French option because of France's opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/3336701.stm

Oh for fuck's sake! Why oh why is there a spoilt child in the White House?

[kalian]

1. I think an artificial island should be create off shore....

and then the reactor built there. No single country should have
to bear the burden of having a sun contained within a magnetic
cage. :D

[proud patriot]

2. Oh for pete's sake GROW UP bush

what an ASS

[Vitruvius]

3. There are more fusion researchers from Europe than Japan -- therefore

it should be in Europe. AND -- at the current exchange rates, our contributions (other than in kind) will buy less in Japan than in Europe. And -- since living in Japan is so expensive for Americans (again thanks to the weak dollar), we won't be able to send as many researchers to Japan as to Europe.

FORTUNATELY, it will probably end up in France. Despite Bu$h.


P.S: Why is there a spoiled child in the White House? Because his daddy stole the presidency for him to use as a toy.

[NickB79]

4. He has to delay building it

He can't let any alternative energy sources compete against the all-mighty oil drum. Cheney would really get pissed at him then.

[Festivito]

5. We're this far behind the rest of the world!

I didn't realize. When Republicans shut down the Texas accelerator I thought we'd drop, but, but, but, already? Scheissen.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. The USA is now part of the consortium

whether they joined (Feb 2003) just to piss off the French is another matter. In fact just about all technologically advanced countries are in it - Canada, EU, Japan, Russia, USA, China, South Korea.

[GAspnes]

14. agreed

The U.S. is falling behind in basic research. We're handing technological superiority to the next generation in Europe. (Which may not be an entirely Bad Thing, come to think of it.)

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Sorry to spoil the fun, but ...

... has anyone managed to sustain a fusion reaction for more than, say, five seconds or so?

No, really, I'd like to know. The last time I checked, fusion energy was still Just Around The Corner.

--bkl

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Spot on

Q:How long is the longest sustained fusion reaction achieved by JET and elsewhere?
A: JET is the only operational machine to observe fusion from D-T (Deuterium-Tritium) reactions. Such fusion reactions have been maintained on JET for around five seconds. Experiments in a device called TFTR in Princeton, USA also observed fusion neutrons from their plasma but TFTR is no longer operational. The next step tokamak (ITER), which has been designed and should be built in the next ten years or so, will demonstrate much more powerful fusion reactions for 5-10 minutes and will, hopefully, provide the stepping stone to commercial fusion powerplants.

http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/faqs/faq2.html#2002

[rman]

12. my thoughts exactly

i do keep myself informed about developments in science, i'd know if they'd found a way to sustain fusion. we aren't there yet.

[wanderingbear]

7. I say we Protest it..

No Nukes! No Nukes!

[tkmorris]

8. A naive point of view

IMHO anyway. I've never understood nor agreed with the protests against nuclear power. It can be dangerous of course, and we should do all we can to make sure it's done safely but to abolish it altogether seems ignorant and shortsighted. Nuclear power CAN be clean, and cheap, and safe. I'd much rather have that than continue burning crude oil.

[rman]

13. fusion doesn't have the problems fission has wrt radio active waste.

that's one reason why fusion is the holy grail of energy.

[ConcernedCanuk]

11. I think most of the world is going in the wrong direction regarding energy

. . While temporarily cheaper, fossil fuels are polluting and nuclear are just fricken dangerous with waste products that will haunt our great-great grand children.

. . While presently more expensive, wind and solar are clean and renewable. But we have to consider the MASSIVE amounts of money that have and are being spent on Research and Development for OIL and nuclear energy sources.

If anywhere near the amount of $$ was invested in alternative sources, the need for fossil and nuclear fuels would greatly decline in the decades to follow

BUT

- the Oil Magnates won't let this happen,

- until it's too late

(and y'all got a war-mongering flunked-out Oil Baron for pResident)

(sigh)