From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 13:04:10 EDT
Actually you may be right about the starving of funds ... and unfortunately
the following extract from the UKAEA fusion web-site places the blame for
that fairly and squarely on the US ...
(find the whole article at http://www.fusion.org.uk/ and follow the link "A
giant leap for fusion" under "Features")
QUOTE:
In the next few months the European Union and Japan must decide whether to
back the next stage in fusion research. The Joint European Torus (JET), the
largest fusion reactor yet built, was completed in 1983 and fusion
scientists have made great progress since it began operating. To make the
next step, a bigger reactor is necessary: one that can emit more energy than
it consumes and can produce a self-sustaining reaction. If these objectives
were achieved, the experimental basis of fusion power would be established.
Fusion would no longer be a holy grail, it would be a reality.
Fusion scientists call it 'the next step'. Their work has reached the stage
where they have to make this next step, or the efforts so far committed will
amount to nothing. In 1998 an international working group of fusion
scientists completed the design. They called it the International Tokamak
Experimental Reactor (ITER) and it was designed to meet the criteria which
would prove that fusion can produce useful energy. But at $6 billion, it
frightened politicians. It frightened US politicians so much they pulled out
of the project, despite the fact that it was Reagan and Gorbachev who first
backed work on the reactor's development.
As a result of the US exit, the costs had to be reduced. Japan, Russia and
Europe remain committed, but the reactor's budget is limited to $3 billion.
Fusion scientists went back to their labs and developed the ITER - Fusion
Energy Advanced Tokomak (ITER- FEAT), the outline design of which has just
received approval from the ITER Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The
costs of the new design are down to 56% of the original ITER, and the TAC is
confident that engineering advances can reduce the cost further, so that the
target of 50% of ITER's original cost will be met. The new design will still
achieve the targets of a self-sustaining reaction and a net energy gain, but
the ambition is reined in. It will probably not reach the kind of energy
gains that would be necessary in a power plant, but it will establish the
experimental basis to show that this is possible.
ENDQUOTE.
If Glenn is right about oil supplies, then it appears to me that we now
won't get fusion energy going in time. With the astronomical costs
involved, I would not have thought that Fusion power will be getting rolled
out on a large scale till late in the 21st century. We might get the first
reactor, if all goes well, by 2050.
But it's still not clear to me that more money at this stage will make much
difference - it looks as if the damage has already been done.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Iain .G.D. Strachan
There are 10 types of people in the world ...
those who understand binary and those who don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>
To: "Iain Strachan" <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: the hydrogen economy
> I am not so sure.
>
> The magnetic field experiments and the laser experiments are the only ones
> being worked to any degree, and those are really starved for funding.
>
> The Manhattan project comes to mind when someone says more money will not
> speed up the various experiments.
>
> Jay Willingham
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Iain Strachan" <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com>
> To: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>; "Glenn Morton"
> <glennmorton@entouch.net>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 11:34 AM
> Subject: Re: the hydrogen economy
>
>
> > > Money seems to be the main weak factor in that equation.
> > >
> > > Jay
> >
> > I don't think that money is the real issue here. I recently spoke to a
> > physicist who works on JET (the large fusion experiment close to where I
> > live) and he gave the timescale as 50 years; 12.5 years to build the
next
> > experiment (ITER) and 12.5 years to run it, during which they get the
> plasma
> > parameters right for fusion and then a similar timescale for the
proposed
> > demonstration fusion reactor (DEMO); 12.5 years to build and 12.5 to
run.
> > He was not of the opinion that the timescale could be speeded up by
> throwing
> > yet more money at it. These experiments are major undertakings. For
> > example the magnetic induction coils are so vast that they could not be
> > transported for long distances. Therefore before you can build your
> fusion
> > reactor you have to build an entire manufacturing plant on site.
> >
> > However, we must stop the sliding goalpost and not allow things to drag
> on.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Iain .G.D. Strachan
> >
> > There are 10 types of people in the world ...
> > those who understand binary and those who don't.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>
> > To: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 3:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: the hydrogen economy
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
> > > To: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>; "ASA"
<asa@calvin.edu>
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 8:58 PM
> > > Subject: RE: the hydrogen economy
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> > > > >Behalf Of Jay Willingham
> > > > >Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 5:09 PM
> > > > >To: Glenn Morton; ASA
> > > > >Subject: Re: the hydrogen economy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Hydrogen strikes me as a junk science/green politician's answer.
> > > > >
> > > > >Where are we in the development of fusion as an energy source?
> > > >
> > > > Not very far. The only thing constant about fusion energy is that
it
> is
> > > > always 50 years away. We really will need to change that constant.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 13:04:21 EDT