From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 13:48:18 EDT
Subject: Re: the hydrogen economy
> This is not the only program, is it?
>
> Jay
>
As far as I'm aware it's the only one that's near to getting a workable
system (ITER -> DEMO). Laser fusion is an even more costly enterprise. I
think most people in the field would say that Tokamaks are the way forward -
it's just a question of the international political will to make it happen.
Iain.
> ----- 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 - 13:48:26 EDT