It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Got Plasma? France Getting Fusion Plant!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
France finally beat out Japan in its bid to host an experimental nuclear fusion reactor expected to produce clean and safe energy.

Apparently negotiations between Japan and France to see who gets the honor of having the industrial Fusion Power Plant have ended-France gets it! Although I think Japan would have benefited more....

Full Story




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Good find

If this actually does work, maybe we can stop burning coal and other petroleum products which pollute the planet. Just glad the first one isn't in my back yard though. Does anyone know what would happen to this kind of reactor if a Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island would happen to it? Is there a possibility of a "China Syndrome"?

[edit on 16-5-2006 by valkeryie]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I disagree. Japan doesn't have the necessary knowledge base in Nuclear Technology IMO and this Plant will probably not even produce that much energy on it's own as it's a prototype plant, not a production plant.

Remember when France went all-out Nuke back in tha day?




Does anyone know what would happen to this kind of reactor if a Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island would happen to it? Is there a possibility of a "China Syndrome"?


This is not possible with a Nuclear Fusion power plant which is why a lot of people are very interested in it.

www.fusion.org.uk...


The fusion fuel cycle does not involve any input of radioactive material and does not generate radioactive waste directly. Radioactivity is present in the form of the intermediate fuel, tritium, and as radioactivity generated in structural materials by the absorption of neutrons. There is the freedom, by suitable choices of design and materials, to reduce the radioactivity to achieve low hazard potential. Studies in this area have been promising and the independent review prepared for the European Commission by the Fusion Programme Evaluation Board was able to propose the following stringent targets as reasonable aims for the fusion programme:

"The worst possible fusion accident will constitute no major hazard to populations outside the plant perimeter that might result in evacuation".

"Radioactive wastes from the operation of a fusion plant should not require isolation from the environment for a geological timespan and therefore should not constitute a burden for future generations."


www.iter.org...



For a fusion power reactor, low activation materials will be extensively used. These will experience a higher dose due to the higher neutron fluxes and their longer time than in the ITER machine, but they will have vastly reduced content of materials with a long radioactive half life. The amount of waste arising in a power reactor at shutdown would be similar to that in ITER, but after 100 years the amount left uncleared would be about 1000 t. (This could even be reduced further by judicious component cutting and dismantling, if economically advantageous.) This is comparable to the waste mass arising from the direct disposal of fission fuel at the end of plant life, i.e without considering the activity of ore tailings during fuel manufacture and without fuel reprocessing.

For a future fusion power reactor, radiotoxicity will also be further reduced compared to that in ITER. Using low activation materials results in a lower quantity of packaged waste for fusion compared to fission. Furthermore, the more diffuse radiaoactive dose of the fusion waste package contents makes the potential danger from any future malicious disinterrment a negligible concern.


[edit on 16-5-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 16-5-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Fusion vs Fission Power

Fusion is usually noted as "better" because it doesn't create toxic waste of death (spent uranium, plutonium) that we have to bury for several millenia to avoid melting to death!
However to moy knowledge it doesn't create as much power as Fission (current nuclear power) and is harder to contain, as we need superheated plasma to fuse things. Think core of the sun.

Fission is our current state of nuclear power. Using a chain reaction of Uranium 238 to systematically explode atoms releasing tons of energy as we destroy the nucleus of the atom. Each explosion creates neutrons which go on and explode other atoms. Fun. However if this reaction is not controlled things go "boom" and start melting due to radiation! Think atomic bomb o' doom. And when that stuff gets airborne...Oh boy. Not fun.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
I disagree. Japan doesn't have the necessary knowledge base in Nuclear Technology IMO

Of course Japan does not, sardion2000...
Japan's JT-60 Tokamak Sets New Plasma Record





seekerof



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by sardion2000
I disagree. Japan doesn't have the necessary knowledge base in Nuclear Technology IMO

Of course Japan does not, sardion2000...
Japan's JT-60 Tokamak Sets New Plasma Record





seekerof


I was thinking in a larger context of eventual deployment as well. ITER is like Ten Tokamaks rolled into one afterall. Remember Frances Nuclear program is the most extensive one, in recent history(15 years) so they have a quite deep and experienced knowledge base.

I actually want Both countries to build an ITER Reactor. Something about not having all your eggs in one basket.

Why build one when you can build two for twice the price.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   
You know sardion2000, I hardly doubt that this has anything to do with France allegedly having the the most extensive program. I do believe this matter and issue, the $12 billion dollar ITER project, was and is bigger than mere technical know-how; it was and is called political.

Japan wanted it and Russia and China contested. EU sided with France--I wonder why.

France wanted it and South Korea and the US contested.



The six partners have been discussing where to build ITER since December 2003. However, the situation was deadlocked because China and Russia supported EU plans to build the reactor at Cadarache, while South Korea and the US backed a Japanese proposal to construct it at Rokkasho-Mura, which is 600 km north of Tokyo.

Source


This was not and never was about Japan and their nuclear technical know-how, it was all political from December 2003.







seekerof

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by sardion2000
I disagree. Japan doesn't have the necessary knowledge base in Nuclear Technology IMO

Of course Japan does not, sardion2000...
Japan's JT-60 Tokamak Sets New Plasma Record





seekerof


I was thinking in a larger context of eventual deployment as well. ITER is like Ten Tokamaks rolled into one afterall. Remember Frances Nuclear program is the most extensive one, in recent history(15 years) so they have a quite deep and experienced knowledge base.

I actually want Both countries to build an ITER Reactor. Something about not having all your eggs in one basket.

Why build one when you can build two for twice the price.


Good movie, that.

I've always kept my eye on the Fusion Power ball and I'll probably continue to update this story as I find new ads.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
It really sucks srabbit's arse that these wonderful machines are built overseas and not here in the great US of A. With the trillion dollars we will have spent in the useless Iraq adventure, we could have easily advanced our expertise in thermonuclear energy generation, create tons of jobs and promote education, and nix our dependency on the Saudi's oil. Mission accomplished.

Instead, we are burining through 150 billion a year. A thermonuclear research reactor is avout 12 billion, which means it only pays for three weeks of trying to reconcile the Sunni, Shia and the Kurds, and to ward off Iran's influence.

It just pains me. Whereas we could be gaining extra strength by becoming the technological superpower and clean energy giant, it all goes to waste. Literally.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I'm new to Abovetopsecret's forums. This sounds cool, are their other prototype factilities for Fussion reactors? Or is this just one currently? I thought Fusion reaction is stronger then fission, ala "Hydrogen bomb" being more powerful than a "Atomic bomb."

I find it also neat that it will produce no harmful waste products as Darkpr0 stated. I should find something backing what I said about fusion power being more powerful.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by valkeryie
Good find

If this actually does work, maybe we can stop burning coal and other petroleum products which pollute the planet. Just glad the first one isn't in my back yard though. Does anyone know what would happen to this kind of reactor if a Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island would happen to it? Is there a possibility of a "China Syndrome"?

[edit on 16-5-2006 by valkeryie]


Bah, the US still burns those fuels becuase it still has them. They will continue to do so until theyre depleated. Otherwise you'd get alot of gripe from the miners and coal power technitians... wouldnt look good for your government.

Canada provides the US with a HUGE chunk of their power... most of the seaboards are powered by canada last time I checked... most of which with nuclear power plants... I wonder why Canada didnt bid for this new tech? We already have more experience in nuclear power than most of the world... includign the states... only, we dont have experience in using it as a weapon.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join