$5.5 Billion Fusion Reactor To Be Built
 

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0506.../050627-5.html

This will quite possibly be one of the biggest breakthroughs in human history if they can finally manage to produce more energy from this process than it requires to run it.

"If all goes to plan, ITER will generate five to ten times more energy than is put in to it. "

Some good nuclear news for a change :thumbsup

some good news for australia too since they are sitting on 30% of the world uranium eh?

...or it will blow a big whole in the groud all the way to China..

I thought it would be bad news, since fusion reactors don't use uranium?

Isn't that how Doc Oc came to be. We better get Spiderman on alert.

lets see who france will sell out to this time!

first iraq and then possibly iran, libya, yemen.......?

Amazing news. We need to do whatever we can, and fast, to move as far away from an oil based economy as we can get; or we are all doomed.

yep. one of the biggest problems with hydrogen cars is the amount of power required to develop the fuel. it kind of undermines both the cost and environmental benefits. this would solve both of them. ive been interested in fusion ever since i caught a discovery documentary some time back, and i think the effects of this project (if successful) will be enormous. oh, and cassie - you seem like a silly whore.

It was supposed to be built in Darlington outside of Toronto but fucking feds dropped the ball on that one big time. The experiment will go on for the next 15 years. A commercial fusion reactor likely won't be built until 2040-2050... well after we've run out of oil and uranium.

Something like that would be an amazing breakthrough in the field of energy, but the risks of initial-developement are insane. If they built that thing and blew, they could level an entire section of France. And if it works the US Government is gonna be a mad house with them trying to figure out how to rape the tax payers with taxing it.

The $5.5 billion is not to build a permanent power station. That is just to construct a test facility, since to date (quoting the same article), "(d)espite more than 50 years of research, scientists have not yet been able to make a fusion reactor here on Earth that produces more energy than they put in."

If it costs $5.5 billion to build a test reactor, think how much actual reactors will cost, if they are even proven to be feasible.

ADG Webmaster

good news indeed

it's already the real thing - they've been able to get back 200-300% the energy they put in already, the testing is just to keep it stable.

Not going to help any of us, so don't care.

I've read many times that fusion reactors much safer than fission reactors, and the world is already full of fission reactors. So perhaps it's not really that insane.

But are they reactors of that magnitude? I understand that a lot of research has been done on it, but anytime you make a jump from small-scale to large-scale, there're always variables you never had to deal with. And I'm all for this, so don't take it that I'm listing reasons to not do it, hell I'd go help if I could. Just also don't wanna see half a country blown off the map cause of a miscalculation. But in retrospect, you never know if you never try.

I'd be more worried about particle accelerators.

Some would say "sell out" is better than killing civilians, start "fantasy" wars, steal from others and supply questionable countrys with weapons... :2 cents:

2 more years till CERN. They are going to discover some really crazy fucking shit once that goes online.

It could be something that saves the world a ton, unless it falls into the hands of people like the ones that run the US.

The old crush the plasma with the magnet thing. They've been trying that forever. Doesn't look like anything new to me

The likelihood of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor in which injury or loss of life occurs is much smaller than that of a fission reactor. The primary reason is that the fuel contained in the reaction chamber is only enough to sustain the reaction for about a minute, whereas a fission reactor contains about a year's supply of fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_...nmental_issues

I don't think the size of the reactor really matters, the difference between the types of reactions seems to be where the difference in safety lies.

"The ITER fusion reactor aims to heat a mass of gas plasma to 200 million °C."

How awesome is that???

yeah, saw this done on Spiderman 2, didn't turn out well

now that sounds safe

First of all, fusion reactors aren't fission reactors that use Uranium. A fusion reactor doesn't split, but aims to fuse deuterium and tritium, two forms of the hydrogen atom.

Furthermore, fusion has nothing to do with burning hydrogen in car engines. In the latter case two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom would form a water molecule and a lot of energy.

Did someone say Doc OC Cash?

Water, Wind, Salt and Solar energy is the way to go. I buy that, especially water/wind energy, it cost a little extra, but its worth it. Too bad not many consumers think that way.

yup, good stuff to come from this.

you could do soo much better things with that money

Like start wars with countrys and shit like that rigth? :2 cents:

That is not possible, allot of things are made from oil and not just gas. 60% of the eletricity that USA uses is generated from burning coal.

Let me guess ... you're american right ?