ITER Project

[lvleph]

Okay, this is an off shoot from another thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=58163&st=0#entry1292200464) in which rev-stoic said

*footnote - you may think of bring up the Iter project as an example of magical technology that will save our future. Please do, I'm an expert on that topic and will enjoy replying to that * To prevent derailing of that thread, I decided to create a new one in which we could discuss the ITER Project.

I guess opinions on the ITER Project (http://www.iter.org) may differ between people. I would actually like to hear your opinions on the ITER Project. I am not an expert on this specific topic, but as some of you may or may not know I was a Nuclear Electrician in the US Navy, and I recently worked for a project at the Nevada Test Site (http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts/default.htm). I didn't create this thread to start an argument, but did to start a discussion on something that we all should know about.

[Sadena Meti]

I started writing an introduction to the project itself for those that don't know, but kept getting longer and longer and rambling so I cut it. Plus I was doing it all from memory, which is never a good idea.

So for starters, anyone interested can get some background information on the project from the source.



http://www.iter.org/



In general summary:

The ITER project is the final step to terrestrial based Hot Fusion power production.
Note I said HOT Fusion. There is no such thing as cold fusion, never will be, it's fiction. Don’t make me get out my wet herring and start waving it threateningly.

Hot Fusion is the final energy source. It is the end-all-be-all. An inexhaustible (therefore sustainable) supply of high-energy.

It does produce some radioactive waste, but in very small amounts and it is all short term radioactive waste, not long term radiotoxic waste, as is the case with Fission.

So in general terms, it is clean, inexhaustible, and high-power.


All sustainable sources of energy suffer from one or both of the following flaws:

1. Scarcity (hydroelectric dams, geothermal heat, they are found in few locations)
2. Low-Power (basically everything except hydroelectric, they produce energy but not of sufficient "intensity" for modern industrial applications. Solar and Wind power are great for powering your house and village, but not for powering an HVAC industrial complex nor a fleet of trucks).

And one could add:

3. Not actually being sustainable. Like nuclear fission. There's a finite amount of Uranium out there. This would also qualify it for 1.



Hot Fusion has none of these flaws.


So what is the problem?

The problems are:

IF

and

WHEN


The IF problem is simple. All the science is there, and it is possible (just look at the Sun), but whether or not we actually pull it off... who can say. Nothing worth discussing here, there's no gainsaying. So ignore IF and assume we do pull it off.


The biggest problem is WHEN (and WHENFOR, i.e. full scale implementation).


The ITER project is way behind schedule (to the tune of 10 years, mainly because of the US trying to insist it be based in Japan and not in Europe. Typical.)

The groundbreaking is taking place as we speak. The timeframe can be found on the website, tons of information there.

Assuming the best of all worlds, the first commercial Hot Fusion reactor will go online in 2060.

A. that's a long time from now (55 years may not seem like a long time, but in the terms of having an energy source, it is. Some people are still in denial, but the fossil fuel age will one day come to an end, with a sickening thud).
B. that's ONE reactor. These reactors do suffer from Scarcity, not in fuel but in production. Doesn't matter how many factories you throw at it, making the superconductors and magnets that these reactors need is a *****. So even if the first one goes online in 2060, and everyone gets the blueprints and the technical know-how, these reactors take 15 years to build, and massive resources. And the number that will need to be built to sustain us is... vast.

So, in summary, the energy salvation is on the horizon, but the question is will it arrive soon enough and widely enough to save our energy addicted society?


And one other interesting point. The 2060 ETA is based on ideal circumstances. No economic crisis, no shortages, no wars. 55 years of peace and prosperity. Failing that, pipedream science projects like this are usually the first to be cut.

Annoyingly, all my best notes on this project (I got bored and studied it for a year) are at home on my laptop. I’ll integrate them later.

[lvleph]

See now from the previous post I figured you were going to claim that it was just as bad as Fission Reactors, and I figured I was going to have to try and debunk that.

Anyway, there has been a lot of work on Fusion Reactors at Los Alamos National Labs (http://fusionenergy.lanl.gov/) in New Mexico. If anyone has a chance to stop by the National Labs for some reason, there are some interesting sights around it like the "Church of the Bomb."

Anyway, fusion has been achieved, but it seems to me the main problem seems to be collection and containment. Last I checked the highest temperature on earth was actually recorded from a fusion "reactor" at Los Alamos. The temperature was actually recorded to be hotter than the surface of the Sun. So there in lies part of the problem. In a reactor, collection of energy is actually done by converting thermal energy into mechanical energy. So let me say, that temperatures that high cause a lot of problems. Please, correct me if I am wrong rev.