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.

 

Nuclear Power Has A Bright Future

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
An international treaty was signed by officials from six nations and the EU today launching a 7bn frank nuclear fusion energy research project called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. The European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, called it a historic event as other countries , the US, India, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia looked on as ITER was unveiled. Demonstration of the power is slated for 2040 and as many as 10,000 new jobs will be created. The commission hopes to accomplish the project in terms that will demonstrate fusion's scientific and technological feasibility.
 



www.guardian.co.uk
The European commission president, José Manuel Barroso, called the occasion a "historic event" in the effort to phase out polluting fossil fuels, while Mr Chirac expressed pride that France had been chosen as the site.

The reactor will be built in Cadarache, in the southern region of Provence. Construction work will begin next year, but the £3.5bn buildings are not expected to be ready for eight years. The EU is shouldering half the costs of the project.

If all goes to plan, officials hope to set up a demonstration power plant by 2040. The long-term experiment could create around 10,000 jobs.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I came across this article and rubbed my eyes. Yes, you are not misreading, it says fusion, not fission. And for 7bn franks is a steal! Is Europe so far ahead of us that they can get what America has strived for since the 40's? I never had any problems with fission reactors, such as the He cooled pebble bed reactors being developed by the Chinese, but fusion reactors for Europe? This will change the entire political, economic, and social landscape of Europe.

Related News Links:
www.chron.com
business.timesonline.co.uk
news.independent.co.uk
www.kansascity.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 21-11-2006 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Why they only allow it 7 billions? I wish the countries would make alliance like that and instead of buying military hardware, they would fund science... Imagine 500 billions (the US military budget) invested in science? We could have cold fusion by now, food for everyone, maybe we could even have bases on mars! But no, we have to be primitive and kill ourselves for nothing. I wish there would be a president with guts that could kill the weapon industry in the US and turn all the budget to science and care for his people.

Science = less religion = no more need for oil = no more pollution = no more wars.

We could find techniques to create pure water from thin air, things like that. It's the corporations, greed and religion that stop humanity from being peaceful and advance to another step of evolution.

[edit on 21-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   


Why they only allow it 7 billions?


That's just the amount they require to build the test facility,
there not being seerely limited on how much they spend.



We could have cold fusion by now,


Cold Fusion most likely is not possible.



food for everyone, maybe we could even have bases on mars!


With that one, it's not so much the money as the public not
wanting to have gone ahead after the moon landing, if the
public had continued ot show interest, and NASA had kept
it's fudning, we'd not only already have a Martian base, but
most likely quite a few orbital habitats and a few lunar colonies
as well.



I wish there would be a president with guts that could kill the weapon industry in the US and turn all the budget to science and care for his people.


That would'nt be a good thing, not only will we always need
weapons, for defence both against nature and any threat we
may encounter.

And weapons research leads to breakthroughs that trickle into
other areas.

Plus, even if we don't have an enemy or need for them, we should
always develop weapons technology.


I do think the current amount of money that goes to the war shouuld
definately be going to science and stuff though.

[edit on 11/21/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   



That would'nt be a good thing, not only will we always need
weapons, for defence both against nature and any threat we
may encounter.

And weapons research leads to breakthroughs that trickle into
other areas.

Plus, even if we don't have an enemy or need for them, we should
always develop weapons technology.


Defence against nature? Bombing the hell out of the ocean? We need helicopters and trucks, but we don't need bombs and guns to fights against nature. Threat we may encounter? Like what? China or Russia? Just keep the nuclear weapons. Cut the rest. Then develop everything else. If USA would disarm, it would be a great step towards peace...

Even if weapon research leads to breaktroughs, corporations and the army keep technologies secrets from the public because it would cripple the economy that is based on oil... but who cares... it would be a great step, no more oil, no more pollution. We would have free energy all around the world. It would be a first and HUGE step towards uniting humanity.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   


Defence against nature? Bombing the hell out of the ocean?

No, I mean things like asteroids and such.




Threat we may encounter? Like what? China or Russia? Just keep the nuclear weapons. Cut the rest. Then develop everything else.

No, I mean a threat like a hostile alien species.




If USA would disarm, it would be a great step towards peace...

Does'nt really matter if we disarm or not, our nature is'nt to
be peaceful all the time, fighting is as mucha part of us as
compassion is.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   


No, I mean things like asteroids and such.


I forgot that one...




No, I mean a threat like a hostile alien species.


We would be oblitared anyway.



Does'nt really matter if we disarm or not, our nature is'nt to
be peaceful all the time, fighting is as mucha part of us as
compassion is.


True, but let disarm everyone until we reach another level of consciousness, the level we'll see weapons only as things to protect us from outer space threats against the human race. Because if not, we will still be stupid enough to kill ourselves.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
umm, its experimental. nobody is way ahead of anybody else. if anything, europe is behind the power curve on this. nobody has, as of yet, made an efficient fusion reactor....by that i mean a fusion reactor that will put out more energy than is being put into it.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Oh come on now Vitch you do not know that. It could just happen to coincidentally be a speicies along the same time table of development and technology as us.

this is not a project for Europe. It is an international agreement being worked on by people from every country involved.

The project's director will be Japanese, and Japan will supply the reactor's most complex parts.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project, or ITER, recognizes that no single country can afford the immense investment needed to move the science forward.

Ivan Oelrich, vice president for strategic security for the Federation of American Scientists, said there is no guarantee the project will lead to designs for commercial reactors. He questioned whether it represented the best investment if the primary goal is to achieve energy independence.

The United States never offered to host the project largely because that would require a much larger share of its cost. The seven partners agreed last year to build the reactor at Cadarache, which houses one of the biggest civil nuclear research centers in Europe. The U.S. has given its final approval, though the other partners still must ratify it.


Well, at last my great-grandchildren may have the option of cheaper energy and the possibility of a regenerating Earth from the centuries of irresponsible consumption and pollution.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I thought it was a typo.

A fusion reactor, huh? ...Not a nuclear fission?

...Anyone know the eco-position on fusion?


.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
It produces significantly less nuclear waste, has very little to no potential for an extreme industrial accident, and the waste it does produce is dangerous for significantly less time than fission. as little as 12 years- to at most as much as 100 years. I know this is a long read, but I think it is quite significant considering the topic.


The likelihood of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor in which injury or loss of life occurs is much smaller than that of a fission reactor. The primary reason is that the fuel contained in the reaction chamber is only enough to sustain the reaction for about a minute, whereas a fission reactor contains about a year's supply of fuel. Furthermore, fusion requires very extreme and precisely controlled conditions of temperature, pressure and magnetic field parameters. If the reactor were damaged, these would be disrupted and the reaction would be rapidly quenched (extinguished).

Although the plasma in a fusion power plant will have a volume of 1000 cubic meters or more, the density of the plasma is extremely low, and the total amount of fusion fuel in the vessel is very small. If the fuel supply is closed, the reaction stops within seconds. Fusion is not a chain reaction and therefore cannot run out of hand: under normal conditions, the fusion process runs at the fastest possible rate, and any deviation from this optimum leads to a decrease in energy production.

In the magnetic approach strong fields are developed in coils that are held in place mechanically by the reactor structure. Failure of this structure could release this tension and allow the magnet to "explode" outward. The severity of this event would be similar to any other industrial accident, and could be effectively stopped with a containment building similar to those used in existing (fission) nuclear generators. The laser-driven inertial approach is generally lower-stress. Although failure of the reaction chamber is possible, simply stopping fuel delivery would prevent any sort of catastrophic failure.

Most reactor designs rely on the use of liquid lithium as both a coolant and a method for converting stray neutrons from the reaction into tritium, which is fed back into the reactor as fuel. Lithium is highly flammable, and in the case of a fire it is possible that the lithium stored on-site could be burned up and escape. In this case the tritium contents of the lithium would be released into the atmosphere, posing a radiation risk. However, calculations suggest that the total amount of tritium and other radioactive gases in a typical power plant would be so small, about 1 kg, that they would have diluted to legally acceptable limits by the time they blew as far as the plant's perimeter fence.


[edit] Effluents during normal operation
The natural product of the fusion reaction is a small amount of helium, which is completely harmless to life and does not contribute to global warming. Of more concern is tritium, which, like other isotopes of hydrogen, is difficult to retain completely. During normal operation, some amount of tritium will be continually released. There would be no acute danger, but the cumulative effect on the world's population from a fusion economy could be a matter of concern. The 12 year half-life of tritium would at least prevent unlimited build-up and long-term contamination.

Waste management
The large flux of high-energy neutrons in a reactor will make the structural materials radioactive. The radioactive inventory at shut-down may be comparable to that of a fission reactor, but there are important differences.

The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tend to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Furthermore, there are fewer unique species, and they tend to be non-volatile and biologically less active. Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains dangerous for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash. [1]. Some material will remain in current designs with longer half-lives. [2]

In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less radioactive material than a fission reactor, the material it would create less damaging biologically, and the activity "burn off" within a time period that is well within existing engineering capabilities.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   
What a waste of money but what a job for life for the folks involved!

I'm old enough to remember that the pro fusion folks stated todays promises a few decades ago! Nothing came of all that research except more promises that "it is possible if you throw billions more money at us".

Try to spot the difference betwen the fusion folks promises and deliverables so far and those of the myriad of "free energy" cons out there. A big fat zero the biggest con going. However, even if you don't believe it's a con think on the following:

1. The timescale for full production is 50-100years (their own estimates) by which time we will have burned so much more fossil fuel that nobody will care about fusion. We'll be too busy trying to survive in a well and truly screwed up world (unless you're a US citizen of course because such things aren't happening are they ?)

2. There is enough energy shining down from the sun every day to meet all our needs we just need to tap into it (or are those fusion physicists not clever enough to do that ?). NB solar energy creates wind and wind creates waves etc etc. It's all originally solar.

3. The estimates of nuclear waste from fusion are severly underestimated. Independant reports are available that show this.

4. We need a solution now which fusion cannot provide therefore spend the money on technologies we know can provide energy now. Unfortunately such solutions don't line the correct political and business pockets do they?

5. Mass production of domestic alternate energy solutions would cause the price of these to plummet to the extent that fusion reactors are not needed and not cost effective. And please don't give me the "such solutions don't meed the needs" excuse. So far such solutions have relied on using the energy in "immediate mode"
and selling the excess back to the grid (DUH DUMB). You store the energy blowing past at night and shining down at midday and use it in the evening. Improved storage technology would help.......any spare technologists and physicists out there ?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo True, but let disarm everyone until we reach another level of consciousness, the level we'll see weapons only as things to protect us from outer space threats against the human race. Because if not, we will still be stupid enough to kill ourselves.


I disagree. It was precisely because of MAD we did not destroy ourselves. And our weapons will never be fairly matched with Nature's power.

In the long run we will see the White House's policy on space as a good thing, mark my words. And return to them later.

Vitchilo I love your tenaciousness and the way you throw your weight into a dabate. I also feel a profound sense of loyalty associated with you. But I am not afraid to show you where you are wrong, so, peace, eh?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr


Try to spot the difference betwen the fusion folks promises and deliverables so far and those of the myriad of "free energy" cons out there. A big fat zero the biggest con going. However, even if you don't believe it's a con think on the following:

2. There is enough energy shining down from the sun every day to meet all our needs we just need to tap into it (or are those fusion physicists not clever enough to do that ?). NB solar energy creates wind and wind creates waves etc etc. It's all originally solar.

3. The estimates of nuclear waste from fusion are severly underestimated. Independant reports are available that show this.

4. We need a solution now which fusion cannot provide therefore spend the money on technologies we know can provide energy now.

...Unfortunately such solutions don't line the correct political and business pockets do they?




Thanks malcr. Great synopsis, good points.


Don't mean to be a twit, but - do you have links to the independent reports showing that "estimates of nuclear waste from fusion are severly underestimated"?

Thanks again..

.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   


It could just happen to coincidentally be a speicies along the same time table of development and technology as us.


No such species would be able to get here in the first place.

Any hostile alien species with the capability to cross interstellar distances would be massively technologically superior. And we'd be extinct.

As far as fusion goes, if we want to reap the benefits in the future, we need to start investing in it now - which is exactly what we're doing (in a rare display of good sense). As far as finding carbon neutral energy sources we can deploy now, well, there's always fission, but somehow I doubt the antinuclear zealots opposing fusion research are going to support new fission plants either.

Solar? Maybe in orbit it's worth it.
Good luck getting anyone to make the long-term investment necessary for that though.

On the surface, to generate enough energy to make a difference, we'd have to be giving large chunks of the Earth's surface over to solar arrays. Funny that solar advocates don't seem to consider the environmental consequences of that at all.

Wind power? Yeah it's proven to be a great boon to migratory birds, for one thing.

Every means of generating energy has ecological costs. So far, the most environmentally friendly options for the future are nuclear. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed in IFR's as fuel, minimizing the waste problem.

Funny that the "environmental" movement's kneejerk opposition to nuclear has ensured that the species is stuck with mostly carbon producing means of power generation for at least another decade.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face


[edit on 11/22/06 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   


Any hostile alien species with the capability to cross interstellar distances would be massively technologically superior. And we'd be extinct.


Not really, as it stands, if certain theories are proven, we
may have a prototpe 'hyperdrive' in the next two decades.


And consider that an alien species may not develop the
same way technologically as we have, that is they may
not have put as much development into weapons as we
ourselves have.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
We haven't even been able to send humans to the nearest planet yet, I imagine any species that could send an attack fleet to Earth is going to be significantly more advanced than we are. And certainly have a far more developed space travel technology base. But this is probably a subject better left to it's own thread


[edit on 11/22/06 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Well we were really referring to the weaponization of space for the future, not present. therefore I think defensive precautions in space for the future should at least be an obligatory option.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Hi,


I agree with Matyas, EU is working hard trough the new nuclear project and is not coincidence that they hope to be full running around 2040 the year that many predict to be the “Oil End”. So in my opinion the nuclear will be (more) secure and a good alternative for world energy needs, but many ecologists groups will be against that energy source.

Other types of alternative energy source will be more ecological, like the Solar Plant in Portugal (thread by ArMaP), or what the Swedish Government is trying to do to be oil free.

Population on Earth is also of concern, check the work of Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy, in the end everything is related.



End of Oil: The Peak Oil Debate

Also we need to take care of the ozone layer (thread by forestlady), something not only very important, but vital!

More references:
. en.wikipedia.org...
. en.wikipedia.org...
. www.llbbl.com...
. www.guardian.co.uk...
. www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net...
. www.durangobill.com...
. www.oilcompanies.net...
. www.theoildrum.com...
. globalpublicmedia.com...

brotherthebig.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

No, I mean a threat like a hostile alien species.


If they were smart enough to get here before we found them snoozing, do you really think we could win that fight? It isn't Hollywood Toto. We should be learning how to bow, not fight.




If USA would disarm, it would be a great step towards peace...

Does'nt really matter if we disarm or not, our nature is'nt to
be peaceful all the time, fighting is as mucha part of us as
compassion is.


I guess my nature is not in line with the people in charge. I have always been against fighting, as it only ever results in pain and/or death. In my world, there is no place for either.

I am really not sure why people need to fight with and kill others. This is a madness that needs to end. If enough people made a stand for world peace, it would become reality.

Deny war, fighting, killing, pain, hunger, war, and if people would stand against these negatives, world peace would be here.

Any thing that will cut our impact on the enviroment is a good thing.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei


And weapons research leads to breakthroughs that trickle into
other areas.



Only because most researchers attempt to go into this feild because it has the most grants and payouts from the government.

If the government were to subsidize research in another path the way it does with the armaments industry, we'd see a different breed of breakthroughs trickle into other areas.

I always new id see an attempt at fusion power in my life, lets just hope there are no serious errors while experimenting. the last thing i want to see is another nuclear disaster in europe.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join