From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 13:23:29 EDT
This is not the only program, is it?
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iain Strachan" <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com>
To: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>
Cc: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: the hydrogen economy
> 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 - 13:24:15 EDT