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.

 

Why are we not investing more money into Fusion energy projects?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Fusion Project gets EU funding - International Business Times



The European Union and six other states agreed on an updated plan to finance and establish a timetable for the ITER project, an experimental fusion reactor which could lead towards the development of unlimited and clean fusion energy.

The parties hammered out a deal at the future site of the project in Cadarache, France at Wednesday. The fusion reaction, which is the same process that powers stars, has already been achieved in smaller experimental reactors and in weapons. The difficulty is developing larger fusion reactors and to achieve a constant fusion process which would generate more energy than what is put in.

This International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (or ITER) project was created in order to combine the scientific and industrial capacities of the most advanced countries in the world to solve mankind's energy problems.

Together with the International Space Station and CERN, ITER is the most extensive and complex international project ever undertaken. The seven members -- China, India, South Korea, Japan, Russia, the United States and the European Union -- are committed to contribute to the historic endeavor in the form of financing, the construction of components and by sending scientists.

ITER's governing council met for two days in Cadarache and discussed ways to finance an estimated budget of 16 billion euros, the latest number as reported by the news agency AFP. A deal was reached on Wednesday when the EU, which holds the largest share of the project with 45 percent, pledged additional financing of a maximum 6.6 billion euros.


OK - Europe/USA/Chinese/Indian/Japanese/Russian/S.Korean joint project for fusion energy breakthrough gets 16-22.6 billion euros - but the UK olympics budget alone is already 9.3 billion GBP, and the Chinese olympics have been estimated to have (really) cost c. 25 billion??

Are we getting our priorities straight? Why are the public being scared with the negatives about energy problems (supply/conflict/sustainability/pollution/climate change) yet only being asked/encouraged to contribute relatively small amounts of [edit: our] money to such important breakthrough projects?

[edit on 31-7-2010 by curioustype]




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 


NB - This would be THE holy grail for 'clean' energy, replacing difficult/dirty fission reactors, yes it would be expensive, but I repeat THE holy grail for sustainable high yield energy - and they really do think they're getting closer. Anyone else confused? Anyone else interested in seeing more investment diverted that way?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 


"We" don't invest because we don't have the money.

Corporations don't invest because it is bad for their existing business.

A weed will never volunteer it's location to a flower.

Peace



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


Thanks, I wonder what do you mean by 'WE'? Yes I know most of us are now broke - however:


WASHINGTON — The monthly cost of the war in Afghanistan, driven by troop increases and fighting on difficult terrain, has topped Iraq costs for the first time since 2003 and shows no sign of letting up. Pentagon spending in February, the most recent month available, was $6.7 billion in Afghanistan compared with $5.5 billion in Iraq. As recently as fiscal year 2008, Iraq was three times as expensive; in 2009, it was twice as costly. The shift is occurring because the Pentagon is adding troops in Afghanistan and withdrawing them from Iraq. And it's happening as the cumulative cost of the two wars surpasses $1 trillion, including spending for veterans and foreign aid. Those costs could put increased pressure on President Obama and Congress, given the nation's $12.9 trillion debt.

Source: USA Today: article link



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I'm all for financing hi tech, research and clean energy initiatives. However, realistically, there are many priorities to be covered. While it's all but certain that we'll have fusion energy available to us within 30-50 years, throwing more money at the concept may not be productive.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


It worked in the Space Race didn't it?

[edit: Let me elaborate, I am not intending this thread to only look at the fiscal issues here, but also the way this issues are presented to us. NB look at the list of investors that have agreed to jointly fund/support this project, then look around at all the current MSM news about how those same nations are all competing, sabre rattling or downright threatening war with each other!?

In addition, this strikes me as a very positive story, the latest research appears to suggest we may be closer than thought to realising this, and it clearly has the power to galvanise international support, it is or could be very similar to the initial manned space programs, and I think could be as positively motivational. Yet this story barely registers, instead, here in the UK we're all focused on very negative issues.

We were constantly told how important it is to find ways to unite the world in the search for better energy models, here's one of the most important, if not THE most important program, yet not only does it get very average funding, but also little MSM news time...?]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by curioustype]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
One wild guess is that there are no new projects because they already have and know everything they need to know and are funneling all money into one or more key projects.

Another guess is that the energy industry and lobby are controlling/suppressing it.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Isn't it obvious. Welcome to the capitalistic whore house where the only thing that matters is money & power. If you're looking for a free ride, you should look for another planet to live on.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by curioustype
reply to post by curioustype
 


NB - This would be THE holy grail for 'clean' energy, replacing difficult/dirty fission reactors, yes it would be expensive, but I repeat THE holy grail for sustainable high yield energy - and they really do think they're getting closer. Anyone else confused? Anyone else interested in seeing more investment diverted that way?


We already have an affordable answer to fusion.

Cold Fusion experimentally confirmed

Just like with the hadley emails scientists have lied to protect
their budgets.

Hadl ey CRU hacked - scientists were frauds

Heavy Watergate - The War on Cold Fusion


Google Video Link


This effort has now been replicated in government labs in the US
at the SPAWAR facility in San Diego.





We can provide CHEAP power to the whole planet if these ppl got
10% of the funding that hot fusion gets.

Good Luck to all the good ppl !



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth
reply to post by curioustype
 


"We" don't invest because we don't have the money.

Corporations don't invest because it is bad for their existing business.

A weed will never volunteer it's location to a flower.

Peace


Hot fusion receives billions in funds every year.

The one system that has produced excess heat is marginalized
as it is too cheap and could end up made by a chemist.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm all for financing hi tech, research and clean energy initiatives. However, realistically, there are many priorities to be covered. While it's all but certain that we'll have fusion energy available to us within 30-50 years, throwing more money at the concept may not be productive.


We have had cold fusion working for the last 21 years.

It has been blocked and obfuscated for 2 decades now.

The above videos make it painfully clear.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Note also that on top of that, we also do have solar cell research for a very long time, with very tangible results and far lower upfront production costs for an accepted and proven technology. So it is not so strange that investment in other sectors is less.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I spent some time with 2 physicists last weekend that are working on hot fusion. They were complaining about funding being cut.

I just told them we probably have a working solution for fusion and tptb are sitting on it.

Why spend money faking on a breakthrough when it already exists.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CUin2013?
I spent some time with 2 physicists last weekend that are working on hot fusion. They were complaining about funding being cut.

I just told them we probably have a working solution for fusion and tptb are sitting on it.

Why spend money faking on a breakthrough when it already exists.


Yes, funding for nuclear fusion for energy purposes is meagre. No, there is no breakthrough technology solution.

There is, potentially, plenty of money if it were a priority. But military contractors and big agribusiness are major existing businesses which have power over government, but there is no Big Fusion Corporation which is able to lobby, give campaign contributions, and employ retired lawmakers at outrageous salary.

In any case, there is a greater need to work on, develop and produce better fission plants NOW, but nobody in the West is doing it either.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join