Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Power United States Technology

Experts Urge US To Continue Support For Nuclear Fusion Research (scientificamerican.com) 234

Posted by BeauHD from the going-forward dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: A panel of 19 scientists drawn from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recommended yesterday that the Department of Energy should continue an international experiment on nuclear fusion energy and then develop its own plan for a "compact power plant." A panel of 19 scientists drawn from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recommended yesterday that the Department of Energy should continue an international experiment on nuclear fusion energy and then develop its own plan for a "compact power plant."

But as the National Academies' report noted, major challenges must be overcome to reach these goals, beginning with how to contain and control a burning "plasma" of extremely hot gas, ranging from 100 million to 200 million degrees Celsius, that can produce more heat than it consumes. The report calls the resulting plasma "a miniature sun confined inside a vessel." The world's biggest experiment intended to create and draw energy from burning plasma is under construction at Cadarache, France. It's called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, and its centerpiece is a large, doughnut-shaped, Russian-inspired reactor called a tokamak. Several member nations have already developed their own national programs, and the assembled National Academies experts concluded that the United States should eventually follow, once the ITER experiment shows there are ways to contain and manipulate a sustained fusion reaction. "It is the next critical step in the development of fusion energy," says the report.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Experts Urge US To Continue Support For Nuclear Fusion Research More

Experts Urge US To Continue Support For Nuclear Fusion Research

Comments Filter:

  • Another great reason not to worry too much (Score:3)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday December 14, 2018 @10:36PM (#57806792)

    The thing about reports that try and forecast how much CO2 we are omitting, is all of them are based on current technology.

    They don't take into account technological breakthroughs, especially on the order of magnitude of getting a working fusion reactor...

    Overnight the entire world's energy makeup would change, as such reactors became widespread.

    No we don't know this exact thing will pan out, but when people are talking about problems even 80 years from now - that is a LONG time for lots of amazing technology to come along. It's certainly been the case that even just over the last 20 years a lot of things are around now that were not dreamed of, nor thought possible back then.

    • Re:Another great reason not to worry too much (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Friday December 14, 2018 @11:23PM (#57806910) Journal

      It sounds like you're saying we don't need to worry about our current CO2 outputs because technology will just come along that solves the problem effortlessly.

      If only. Managing CO2 atmospheric levels is a difficult problem whose solution spans geography, cultures, economies, political systems ... it's not just about technology. Leaving it all up to The Invisible Hand of technological progress is wishful thinking that we just can't afford. We need to make plans and set goals.

      Scientists and engineers have been trying to get a fusion reactor to work for decades. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a working fusion reactor in our lifetimes. But it's a mistake to depend on a technology that is, however worthy, still not viable yet. Wind, solar, tide, geothermal -- and yes, nuclear fission -- are all proven technologies that are not perfect but are viable now.

      • The problem is that to "solve" the "problem" in the manner you describe would require a global governance. And this would be an inescapable tyranny, which would gather power after power to itself and be utterly unanswerable to the people. The cure is worse than the disease.

        • The problem is that to "solve" the "problem" in the manner you describe would require a global governance

          No it doesn't. It just requires that scientists share their findings and work together. They already do this, especially on large projects based around pure science.

          It is unfortunate it is taking so long to develop workable fusion power, but it is a rather complex problem to solve. I do wish more resources were put into it- it is one of the best-hope projects being done to "change the world." Unlimit

      • This is exactly the most dangerous kind of thinking. There is no reason to believe that a fusion power plant is any less likely than any of the other pie-in-the-sky schemes to control global CO2. As this article infers, fusion research is paid for with surplus tax money from various world governments (ignoring Lockheed and other private programs). That kind of money comes from increased economic activity which is directly correlated with the amount of fossil fuels that are burned. Restricting the free flow

        • There is no reason to believe that a fusion power plant is any less likely than any of the other pie-in-the-sky schemes to control global CO2.

          While that's true, that only applies to the other pie-in-the-sky schemes, and not to the credible ones. Therefore, you really said absolutely nothing useful there.

      • It sounds like you're saying we don't need to worry about our current CO2 outputs because technology will just come along that solves the problem effortlessly.

        I find it amusing you think developing a fission reactor is "effortless"

        Or developing much more efficient solar cells. Or any one of the countless other things that WILL improve over the next 20-30 years in ways you cannot image.

        It's not that these things are effortless - it's that over the span of all progress, they are INEVITABLE. The massive swit

    • Re:Another great reason not to worry too much (Score:4, Interesting)

      by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Saturday December 15, 2018 @01:20AM (#57807176)
      You deliberately pretend that you don't understand that we have to reduce emissions drastically right now, and actually have to get to negative emissions (taking CO2 out of the atmosphere) as well, because we've gone too far, because of denialists like you.

      You hold out that some tech 50 years from now will save us from global warming. We are already at 1 C above pre-industrial-revolution global average temperature, and we have already locked in probably 1.5 C above pre-industrial-revolution global average temperature, and on our current trajectory we're heading for 4 to 5 C above, which is a different kind of planet than humanity has ever known.

      Whatever we do right now will start bending the curve in 50 to 100 years. That's how frickin' big this problem and system is. That's how long it takes to turn this Titanic (climate trends) so we have to start immediately and drastically.

      You undoubtedly know all this but your agenda is to keep feeding uncertainty to the ignorant. You are an intergenerational criminal.

    • Sorry (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      Coal was supplanted over a century ago. It is still used.

      Safe forms of fission exist, and have done for 40+ years, but none are in use in the US. The US also bans any form of nuclear reprocessing, resulting in far more dangeroys waste being created.

      • resulting in far more dangeroys waste being created.
        You got it the wrong way, reprocessing produces more dangerous waste. Or more concentrated waste of the same danger ... depending how you want to judge it.

    • Over night? After they get the first reactor working, how many more years will it take to come up with a commercially viable design? How long will it take to build enough of them to replace all the coal and gas fired power plants? You must have long nights where you live.

    • It's my understanding and experience that reputable forecasters always phrase things like : "If this trend continues..." or "Without substantive change in the way we do X, Y is the likely result."

      In my opinion, that isn't just weasel wording to cover themselves if their predictions turn out to be off or even completely wrong. They are challenges to drive further research, free debates on how to achieve the desired changes and so on. Once we accept that trend X is likely to result in Y, then we can take a g

  • It's over an hour long, if you want to skip to the cost/planning information, skip to 55:13 http://www.psfc.mit.edu/news/m... [mit.edu]

  • Ignition (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Friday December 14, 2018 @10:54PM (#57806838)

    Nobody has hit ignition yet. This includes the massive complex at Lawrence Livermore. Know how long they have been trying? The "laser bay" set in Tron was filmed in the prototype for the Livermore system. It was built in the 90's, at four times the original cost, and still isn't up to "full power," apparently because they don't know how to get it there.

    So, yeah, fusion research in the US has been a total debacle. Hopefully the Europeans can get it to work, but they're already spending the money, so why does the US have to? I think we have the sunken cost fallacy going on with the National Ignition Center.

    • Re:Ignition (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Friday December 14, 2018 @11:13PM (#57806878)

      Hopefully the Europeans can get it to work, but they're already spending the money, so why does the US have to

      Owning that technology seems monumentally valuable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        "Owning that technology seems monumentally valuable.."

        Perhaps for a while, but it's all risk/reward, and not in any way a sure thing. We've all heard the claims for decades.

        The only way it's "monumentally valuable" is if it not only works, but can be commercialized fast enough to provide an ROI shorter than the remaining patent term, unless you seriously believe that practical fusion power can be kept a trade secret.

        Because, no one "owns that technology" even if they figure it out. Society has simply gra
      • Too late. W7X, because the Germans actually gave a shit about innovation 20 years ago, despite “socialism.” Now they’ve got better healthcare AND energy.
      • Why would we want the Americans to have it? They'll just find a way to use it for making war on brown people countries, like they always do. In the hands of Europeans it would be much safer for the world, as well as be good for environmental and social justice. Europe can't make war on other countries, it simply lacks the ability to do so.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by markdavis ( 642305 )

          >"Why would we want the Americans to have it? They'll just find a way to use it for making war on brown people countries, like they always do."

          Not only is that totally inaccurate, you fail to realize that one of the most major points of conflict in the world revolves around energy. If you would stop viewing the world through distorted, far-left lenses, you might discover that plentiful, safe, cheap energy would allow all countries a measure of peace, security, and prosperity like nothing else ever could

          • You desperately need to study actual history.
            He probably wanted to say: Europe combined has only half as many carriers as the US.

            Or perhaps he meant: Europe has no subs to sink an US carrier.

            Or perhaps he meant: an Exocet is late 1980s technology and wont sink an AEGIS cruiser ...

            Perhaps he only was daydreaming and talking in his dreams ...

            I could include some links to highlight his follies but that would spoil your fun in googling ... hint: Gotland ... or german subs (yeah, they are in disarray ...)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by melted ( 227442 )

        Knowing it works is valuable. Owning it once you know the tricks, replicating it is trivial given the scientific base we already have in this country.

      • Wait for someone else to develop it, then steal the plans.

        But seriously, there's something to be said for waiting if the existing technology doesn't seem to be up to the task. Japan spent several decades working on and pouring billions of dollars into HDTV, determined to be the first country to have HDTV broadcasts and be in control of all the standards. The U.S. didn't do anything. But Japan built their HDTV standard on analog transmission because that was the only technology capable of doing TV broa

    • Re:Ignition (Score:5, Insightful)

      by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Saturday December 15, 2018 @08:34AM (#57807892)

      Disclaimer: I work in close proximity and collaboration with a DOE-funded fusion research center.

      Fusion research has progressed significantly scientifically speaking, we can repeatedly trigger fusion reactions now, the only problem is input v. output (we still put more in than out) but everything else, containment etc. is pretty much figured out. The power differential is a hard problem made only harder by regulations on the fuels necessary. There are various fusion sites in the US that can't even get their hands on the fuels that have been delivering higher yields and if you've never worked with DOE - trying to hire or replace an employee can take 2-3 years, everything else that's done (hey we think we'll get better yields with a $10,000 modification or "let's replace that computer") can take ages as well.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by JBMcB ( 73720 )

        Thanks for the post! I couldn't find any more recent information than a few years ago when NIF stopped. What fuels are difficult to find? Last I heard it was mostly deuterium, which isn't *that* hard to get.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 4im ( 181450 )

      What do you mean by "hit ignition"? If you're talking about achieving fusion, it's been done ages ago - in "simple" farnsworth fusor, in tokamaks, in stellarators. The fusion reaction has even been kept on for quite some seconds. They might even have reached break-even (i.e. produced more energy from fusion than has been pumped into the reactor).

      Now, what nobody has achieved is to actually make use of the energy. That's not even on the roadmap for ITER, but would be for its successor DEMO.

      As for the NIF, ha

    • Re:Ignition (Score:5, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday December 15, 2018 @10:04AM (#57808126)

      Know how long they have been trying?

      We haven't been trying. The funding for nuclear fusion has been absolutely laughable. In all of 2018 the united states has spent less on fusion than Total has spent on their garden variety supercomputer to help speed up the processing of depth sounding for searching for oil.

      They have spent less money on fusion research in 2018 than a single highway lane expansion project that we have running locally to add a single lane each way for a 10km stretch of road.

      We're not trying. We're not even really giving the illusion of trying.

      Hopefully the Europeans can get it to work, but they're already spending the money, so why does the US have to?

      Because there's more than one aspect of fusion research, there are multiple proposed ways of achieving it, and letting someone else do something in the off chance that they get it working first go is making a losing bet, if they lose we're no better off, if they win, we'll spend a lot of money paying them for their knowledge.

  • "Experts Urge US To Continue Support For Nuclear Fusion Research"

    s/Experts/Recipients of government grants/

    • I was thinking more like . . .

      "Food Stamp Recipients Urge US To Continue Support For Food Stamp Program"

    • As opposed to doing what, precisely?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I haven't had a chance to look up who is on this committee, but an office mate of mine was on a previous similar committee that prepared a report recommending fusion research funding a few years ago. The committee included a lot of scientists that would not benefit from fusion funding, including other plasma physics researchers (e.g. astrophysical plasma and plasma processing research) and people from industry. Often such committees specifically avoid people with such conflicts of interest, using direct pa

  • Trump will kill fusion research, too (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Saturday December 15, 2018 @12:42AM (#57807094) Journal
    In his apparent mad rush to drag the U.S. back to the 1940's technologically, socialogically, and politically, the gods-be-damned Trump administration will likely defund, kill off, and bury any and all research into practical fusion reactor technology, and instead insist on building more coal-fired power plants. Give 'em enough rope, and he'll probably try to outlaw solar power and wind power, too. Never mind what that'll do even in the short term to nationwide air quality and people's respiratory health, his science adviser [theguardian.com] assures him there's no connection between asthma, and other respiratory diseases, and air pollution.

    Meanwhile countries like China will forge ahead and likely master fusion technology ahead of the U.S., and rub our faces in it in front of the rest of the world, making the U.S. look like even a bigger laughingstock than it already has been made to look like in the last 2 years, if you can believe that's even possible. If Trump, somehow, against all odds and against all common sense, manages to get re-elected in 2020, all I can tell you is: better start learning to speak Mandarin and Russian.
  • I don't see how this fits into our plan to destroy every living thing on Earth within the next 100 years?

    • You don't understand the plan. It's not to kill every living thing. The 0.01% of the population that is filthy rich wants to get rid of most of the rest of the population because they are unnecessary for their enjoyment of life, and in fact, cause problems for them. They only need a small number of people to clean, cook, farm, and etc. Once the population is nearly wiped out, we won't need but 0.01% of the cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. that we need now to feed all those useless people.

      I don't care how ba

  • Harrumph, harrumph! (Score:4)

    by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Saturday December 15, 2018 @03:02AM (#57807328) Homepage
    Gentlemen, we must protect our phoney baloney jobs! Harrumph harrumph!

  • Is to persuade governments to fund research. BNFL burned renewable funding. The US repeatedly blocks fusion and is currently anti-science.

  • How many coal men will be put back to work in the coal mines if they make fusion energy work?

    'nuff said...

    #MAGA

  • When thinking long-term about an area of science or technology, it is important to think about sustaining the development and retention of people across multiple professional generations. The government should be planning in terms of how many people it is going to sustain in developing fusion power for multiple decades and then do it. You have to pay the people, and you have to pay for the machines that the people are going to build to learn more. Otherwise you end up losing the people who know what they ar

  • and then develop its own plan for a "compact power plant.

    Might it not be a good idea to wait until a self sustaining fusion reaction has been achieved before setting out to design fusion power plants?

    My guess is that once it becomes clear that a fusion power plant is doable and the economics are viable, getting funding -- private and/or public -- is unlikely to be all that big a problem.

  • First of all, how dare you communist bastards suggest we invest money in development of science a technology using Celsius as our scale of measurement. If you really want money, you'll switch to Farenheit ASAP.

    Also, investments in free and clean energy are anti-American. We have goals of reducing emissions standard requirements to promote the free market and allow people to right to choose to drive cars that consume more fuel. If you were to interfere by decreasing the value of energy, this would interfere

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close