• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New International Fusion Reactor

NeenerNeener

Senior member
U.S. Statements on
International Fusion Reactor (ITER) Siting Decision

WASHINGTON, DC - Today in Moscow, Russia, the ministers representing the six ITER parties, including Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science, announced the ITER international fusion reactor will be located at the EU site in Cadarache, France. Below are statements by U.S. government officials following the signing of the agreement at the Ministerial Meeting. The text of the announcement by the six parties is available at www.iter.org

· Statement by U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman:

"Plentiful, reliable energy is critical to continued worldwide economic development. Fusion technologies have the potential to transform how energy is produced and provide significant amounts of safe, environmentally-friendly power in the future. The ITER project will make this vision a reality."

· Statement by DOE Office of Science Director Raymond L. Orbach, who represented the United States at the Ministerial Meeting:

"The United States supports the decision of the parties to the ITER negotiations to conduct the international fusion reaction experiment at Cadarache, France, and the U.S. looks forward to getting ITER construction there underway as soon as practical.

"It boded well for ITER that there were two serviceable sites and six parties committed to this important fusion project. Now that the partners have agreed on a site, the ITER negotiations must also resolve an agreed-upon financial and procurement arrangement, together with a satisfactory management and oversight arrangement.

"In these negotiations, the U.S. will continue to strive for a robust management structure and an oversight program based on the principles of equity, accountability and transparency to ensure both the success of the project and the best use of taxpayer dollars.

"Fulfilling the promise of ITER will require continued international collaboration and cooperation such as that demonstrated by the six parties to the ITER talks in arriving at today's decision."

NOTE: Dr. Orbach will be available to speak with reporters by phone at 12 p.m. Eastern today. Reporters should call the DOE press office at 202/586-5806 for details about the conference call.

The text of Dr. Orbach's prepared remarks at the Ministerial Meeting is available at:
www.sc.doe.gov

Background:

President Bush announced on January 30, 2003, that the U.S. was joining the negotiations for the construction and operation of a major international magnetic fusion project. Known as ITER, the project's mission is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy.

"The results of ITER," President Bush said, "will advance the effort to produce clean, safe, renewable, and commercially-available fusion energy by the middle of this century. Commercialization of fusion has the potential to dramatically improve America's energy security while significantly reducing air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases."

The Bush administration considers fusion a key element in U.S. long-term energy plans because fusion offers the potential for abundant, safe and environmentally benign energy. ITER will allow scientists to explore the physics of a burning plasma at energy densities close to that of a commercial power plant, the critical next step in producing and delivering commercially available electricity from fusion to the grid.

Another key advantage of fusion energy over current methods of electricity generation is that it can produce hydrogen with no carbon emissions. Thus ITER may contribute to a hydrogen-based economy of the future.

The Department of Energy has led the U.S. delegation to the ITER talks. China, the European Union, Japan, the Russian Federation, and South Korea also are participating in the ITER negotiations.

There have been two competing sites to host the $5 billion test bed for harnessing nuclear fusion to generate electricity. In November 2003, the European Union selected Cadarache, France, as its candidate site; Japan's contender was in Rokkasho. The U.S. had supported the Japanese site on technical grounds.

In July 2004, the U.S. Department of Energy announced after a national competition that the U.S. ITER Project Office will be located at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, located on Princeton University's James Forrestal Campus in Plainsboro, New Jersey. Princeton and its partner, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, jointly operate the U.S. ITER Project Office which is responsible for project management of U.S. activities to support construction of the international research facility.

-DOE-

R-05-145
 
Yup, Cadarache. Perhaps you heard it from me in another thread. I just figured I'd pass along the DOE email making it official.
 
Not suprising either. France has considerable expertise in fission management, and since the US has decided to pass on being the high energy physics leader, this gives easier access to the EU physicists who will be doing most of the associated work.
 
All attempts at nuclear fusion have failed so far, and there are many physicists that believe it's impossible to create a reactor that produces more energy than it takes to run the reactor.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
All attempts at nuclear fusion have failed so far, and there are many physicists that believe it's impossible to create a reactor that produces more energy than it takes to run the reactor.

aparently some physicists think it is possible (or at least i f'ing hope some do!!!) b/c we and other countries are about to spend some substantial cash on this....
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
All attempts at nuclear fusion have failed so far, and there are many physicists that believe it's impossible to create a reactor that produces more energy than it takes to run the reactor.
It depends on what you're definition of failure is. The break-even point (Q=1) has already been reached by the JT-60 in Japan in 1996 and in 1998 they ramped up to a Q=1.28. It is without a doubt possible to produce more energy than it takes to kick off a reaction (called the driver energy), and it should be self-sustaining once it begins (considering the enrgy feedback loop as well that it takes to maintain a fusion reaction). The problem lay in plasma instability and magnetic containment. There are new fusion technologies and ideas going into ITER that will hopefully resolve those issues.

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: ntdz
All attempts at nuclear fusion have failed so far, and there are many physicists that believe it's impossible to create a reactor that produces more energy than it takes to run the reactor.
It depends on what you're definition of failure is. The break-even point (Q=1) has already been reached by the JT-60 in Japan in 1996 and in 1998 they ramped up to a Q=1.28. It is without a doubt possible to produce more energy than it takes to kick off a reaction (called the driver energy), and it should be self-sustaining once it begins (considering the enrgy feedback loop as well that it takes to maintain a fusion reaction). The problem lay in plasma instability and magnetic containment. There are new fusion technologies and ideas going into ITER that will hopefully resolve those issues.

I'm impressed by your level of knowledge on the subject, TLC. Perhaps you're not so bad after all. 😉 We call it "ignition" when the reaction feeds back to sustain the plasma current. Vroom, vroom!

Here's my division's website.
 
It's definitely happening in France. Title should be updated.

Originally posted by: ntdz
All attempts at nuclear fusion have failed so far, and there are many physicists that believe it's impossible to create a reactor that produces more energy than it takes to run the reactor.

Completely unhelpful information. Even if all attempts have failed in the past, doesn't mean it can't work in the future. Your second clause is just an appeal to popularity.
 
Hmmm...I guess the administration probably thinks if its gonna go horribly wrong, let it go horribly wrong in France.
 
Originally posted by: Maverick
Hmmm...I guess the administration probably thinks if its gonna go horribly wrong, let it go horribly wrong in France.



Hah! Well wasn't up to our administration. I have thought that before though. I'd rather have a building full of tritium in France than here. 🙂~
 
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Originally posted by: Maverick
Hmmm...I guess the administration probably thinks if its gonna go horribly wrong, let it go horribly wrong in France.



Hah! Well wasn't up to our administration. I have thought that before though. I'd rather have a building full of tritium in France than here. 🙂~

I'd imagine the US was also a little scared of the nimby situation. France and Japan are too centralized nation-states that can cram things past local nimby concerns. I think France was a good choice in that ultimately most of the international scientists will be closer to their homes there and it is less foreign of a country to most Westerners than Japan is.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Originally posted by: Maverick
Hmmm...I guess the administration probably thinks if its gonna go horribly wrong, let it go horribly wrong in France.



Hah! Well wasn't up to our administration. I have thought that before though. I'd rather have a building full of tritium in France than here. 🙂~

I'd imagine the US was also a little scared of the nimby situation. France and Japan are too centralized nation-states that can cram things past local nimby concerns. I think France was a good choice in that ultimately most of the international scientists will be closer to their homes there and it is less foreign of a country to most Westerners than Japan is.

I'm not sure if the US was ever in the running to host it... the US even pulled out once I believe.

Japan would be a less foreign of a country to most "Easterners" than France is.
 
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Japan would be a less foreign of a country to most "Easterners" than France is.

Of course. I am assuming that most scientists in the field are still Westerners or Wester-trained.
 
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: ntdz
All attempts at nuclear fusion have failed so far, and there are many physicists that believe it's impossible to create a reactor that produces more energy than it takes to run the reactor.
It depends on what you're definition of failure is. The break-even point (Q=1) has already been reached by the JT-60 in Japan in 1996 and in 1998 they ramped up to a Q=1.28. It is without a doubt possible to produce more energy than it takes to kick off a reaction (called the driver energy), and it should be self-sustaining once it begins (considering the enrgy feedback loop as well that it takes to maintain a fusion reaction). The problem lay in plasma instability and magnetic containment. There are new fusion technologies and ideas going into ITER that will hopefully resolve those issues.

I'm impressed by your level of knowledge on the subject, TLC. Perhaps you're not so bad after all. 😉 We call it "ignition" when the reaction feeds back to sustain the plasma current. Vroom, vroom!

Here's my division's website.
I've been interested in fusion since I was a wee lad and first heard about. In high-school physics, which was about 30 years ago at around the time of the first gas crisis, I wrote a gloriously idealistic term paper on fusion and how it would one day change the world. I'm into astronomy, cosmology, particle physics, and super-string theory as well and I still keep up with fusion advances today. (And I'm an Aries, like long-legged brunettes, and hate crumbs in the bed :laugh: )

The idea of relatively cheap, relatively clean energy that doesn't require so much raping of the earth, and is based on such an abundant source, is very appealing. imo, like most high-tech, it's going to be extremely expensive initially and once we finally nail it we'll refine the process and bring down the costs of building a reactor significantly.

Cheap energy for everyone in the world, baby.

 
Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I'm not sure if the US was ever in the running to host it... the US even pulled out once I believe.

What's so surprising?

The U.S. is all about the almighty bottom line for it's Corporations/Government and don't believe in Science anymore if it interferes with said bottom line at any time.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I'm not sure if the US was ever in the running to host it... the US even pulled out once I believe.

What's so surprising?

The U.S. is all about the almighty bottom line for it's Corporations/Government and don't believe in Science anymore if it interferes with said bottom line at any time.

The U.S. has been doing research in the area for forty or fifty years. The design of ITER is largely based on our research and we are contributing about 2 billion to ITER. We did pull out at one time. I'm kinda glad we aren't hosting it, actually. Now I might someday be able to go to France again, and this time on the company dime. 🙂~
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I'm not sure if the US was ever in the running to host it... the US even pulled out once I believe.

What's so surprising?

The U.S. is all about the almighty bottom line for it's Corporations/Government and don't believe in Science anymore if it interferes with said bottom line at any time.

You must not do much in science.
 
Back
Top