Nuclear Fusion Site

Harry Tuttle · December 20, 2003, 18:15

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...r_reactor_dc_2

Decision Delayed on Site of Nuclear Fusion Plant
1 hour, 7 minutes ago Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Officials of several major countries meeting in Washington to consider where to locate a massive nuclear fusion reactor, postponed their decision after failing to agree on a site, representatives said on Saturday.

Members of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project met on Friday and Saturday to choose between a site in France and one in Japan to host the project, worth $12 billion.

They couldn't reach an agreement, French officials said. "At the end of the meeting... it was agreed by all parties present that no definitive choice could be made at this stage," France's Research Ministry said in a statement issued in Paris.

The ITER project is to be a joint venture between the United States, China, Russia, South Korea (news - web sites), the European Union (news - web sites) and Japan and is valued at billions of dollars to build and operate.

The goal is to create a sustained nuclear fusion reaction that potentially will provide a safe and efficient source of pollution-free energy.

The U.S. Energy Department, which hosted the ITER meeting, had said on Friday it expected a decision on the winning site to be announced at the conclusion of the gathering.

It was unclear when the ITER might meet again to vote on the site, but a French official, Stephane Salord, said a decision would have to be taken by February and said that voting rules could be changed to prevent another stalemate.

The European Union supports a site at Cadarache in southern France while the small village of Rokkasho in Japan, home to about 12,000 people, was the prime contender.

Japanese officials said their site offered access to a port and ample supplies of sea and fresh water, which they felt offered an advantage over the French site.

Fabio Fabbi, spokesman for European Union Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin, said the bloc would continue to campaign for its site in Cadarache, near the Mediterranean port Marseille.

"We regret the fact that the international partners were unable to reach agreement in a first shot, because although the Japanese site is of high quality, we think Cadarache is better and deserves to be the location," Fabbi said.

European sources close to the talks, held behind closed doors near Washington, said the United States and South Korea favored locating the plant in Japan. Russia and China were said to back the French site at Cadarache.

As well as prestige, big economic stakes are at play. Construction of the reactor alone is expected to require a decade and to provide employment for about 2,000 workers.

The site selection has potential political significance as well, given the sensitivity of diplomatic ties between Washington and Paris over France's opposition to the Iraq (news - web sites) war.

In nuclear fusion, atoms are brought together as opposed to nuclear fission in which energy is released by splitting the atom, the process used in nuclear plants and to make weapons.

--Ok, I haven't kept up much on Nuclear Fusion reactors.

1). Whose design is it (Tokamak?).
2). What else would the site need besides water.
3). I thought fusion did produce pollution, but in smaller quantities than fission. Obviously helium, but I'm sure there are some really high energy particles that aren't consumed.
4). Will it go Kaboom like the Japanese reactor supposedly did in the 90's?

Sarxis · December 20, 2003, 18:25

This really sounds like politics at work. Both sites are probably fine, but everyone's just picking a team.

Harry Tuttle · December 20, 2003, 18:27

I agree. This sounds like one of those backwater arguments that are sometimes used to fight a political battle without going head to head on a big, news-hungry scale.

Though, I am interested in what exactly they will be building at one of the two sites.

Snotty · December 20, 2003, 18:31

I don't really see any ulterior motive here on the part of the powers involved. China wants it in Europe because they don't like Japan, and Europe and Russia want it close to them so they can make most use of it.

mrmitchell · December 20, 2003, 18:46

This seems to be an awesome idea, if it can get off the ground and work. I don't care where the site is...Japan, France, either works for me.

DAVOUT · December 20, 2003, 19:17

The world cooperating on a research project, it is great !

Here is the site of the project :

http://www.iter.org/

Quote:

Ministers representing the participants in negotiations on ITER construction - Canada, China, Europe, Japan, South Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America - met in Washington today. Unfortunately, they were unable to reach agreement on the site for ITER, and agreed to meet again after the end of January 2004. They issued the following joint Communique:

"The Six Parties have reached a strong consensus on a number of points.

We have two excellent sites for ITER, so excellent in fact that we need further evaluation before making our decisions based on consensus.

We have agreed to provide remaining questions to the candidate host parties by the end of December for their answers by the end of January.

We will ask the ITER Team in conjunction with the ITER Parties to conduct a rapid exploration of the advantages of a broader project approach to fusion power. This work will be done on the same schedule.

With all this information, we plan to hold a follow-up Ministerial meeting to reach consensus as quickly as possible, likely to be in February."

cinch · December 20, 2003, 19:21

Quote:

Ministers representing the participants in negotiations on ITER construction - Canada, China, Europe, Japan, South Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America - met in Washington today.

How come Canada was not mentioned in the original article?

THIS INJUSTICE WILL NOT STAND!

Harry Tuttle · December 20, 2003, 19:23

Hey man, you guys gave up with the Avro Arrow...

Seriously, check out the Starmakers video on the site. Pretty informative.

DRoseDARs · December 20, 2003, 19:56

Yep, it's bigger than a breadbox (though I would have thought it larger than this...)

Panda · December 20, 2003, 19:56

If the $5 billion outlay would really result in a $30 billion economic boon, then Europe should expand CERN and build their own.

I don't really see Dubya backing the French site, but the Chinese could be brought round to back the Japanese if the US wanted to exert the influence.

DAVOUT · December 20, 2003, 20:02

The method of decision is the consensus, so the Chinese changing side would not do the trick. And the Chinese backing the Japan would be something new!

Cadarache, although in France, is not the French site, it is the European site.

Snotty · December 20, 2003, 20:09

Quote:

I don't really see Dubya backing the French site, but the Chinese could be brought round to back the Japanese if the US wanted to exert the influence.

I thought that Chinas dislike for Japan ran so deep that they would oppose it being built in Japan on principle. China would benefit from it being built there, but Japan would benefit more.

yavoon · December 20, 2003, 20:26

everyone should build their own.

Harry Tuttle · December 20, 2003, 20:27

Well, the only problem I see here is really the job situation. The Europeans will benefit more from the French site as there will be some jobs that can be readily supplied from the surrounding job pool, vice versa with Japan. The kicker is that I doubt that many of the construction or scientific jobs will be pulled from any local sources.

I mean, this is top level research. I'm sure the potential employee list is relatively short and static.

Also, the materials needed for the construction will all probably be made special around the world, and not just on the Continent, or on the Home Islands. So there is no real boost there. Travel costs are negligible. Except for maybe being a boon to a community surrounding the site I don't see any huge economic bonus for eaither site.

Except if you count that whole "pride" thing...

DAVOUT · December 20, 2003, 20:43

There are research centers devoted to fusion all over Europe, including at Cadarache (which detains world records in fusion). It would be more comfortable for the European scientists if the site is in Europe.

As for pride, the undertaking is so difficult and uncertain that modesty is required.

DanS · December 20, 2003, 21:49

The BBC reported that Russia, China and Canada also wanted the site in Japan. Russia and China must have been enticed to switch.

Personally, I think this is just a lot of science pork.

DAVOUT · December 20, 2003, 21:53

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
The BBC reported that Russia, China and Canada also wanted the site in Japan. Russia and China must have been enticed to switch.

I was surprised to read that on the BBC (without explanations) whereas the French press mentionned the actual results of the vote several days earlier.

DanS · December 20, 2003, 21:56

What did that vote say? The same as in the story above?

Ned · December 20, 2003, 22:01

Why don't they put it in Norway and make it a cold fusion site?

Or, why not Baghdad?

DAVOUT · December 20, 2003, 22:03

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
What did that vote say? The same as in the story above?

Yes, the same.

I am intrigued by the presence of South Korea. I was not aware that it was engaged in that sort of fundamental very long term research.

Sava · December 20, 2003, 22:44

Why do I have a feeling that some super fusion reactor will blow up and kill us all?

Skanky Burns · December 20, 2003, 23:54

'Cause you are irrational.

Urban Ranger · December 21, 2003, 01:24

Fusion reactors are safe since they don't blow up, melt down, or produce radioactive wastes.

Harry Tuttle · December 21, 2003, 01:25

Harry Tuttle · December 21, 2003, 01:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Fusion reactors are safe since they don't blow up, melt down, or produce radioactive wastes.

Actually I think the component parts of the reactor do retain some radioactivity, but that's only because they are being bombarded with high energy. Overall the reactor would, in theory, be safe.

Except of course you are Keanu Reeves and have a small research facility in an abandoned steel plant on the outskirts of Chicago....

DRoseDARs · December 21, 2003, 02:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Why do I have a feeling that some super fusion reactor will blow up and kill us all?

You're confusing fusion reactors with point singularity plants and "blow up" with "suck us in."

Q Classic · December 22, 2003, 11:32

Quote:

I am intrigued by the presence of South Korea. I was not aware that it was engaged in that sort of fundamental very long term research.

they are.

Quote:

Except of course you are Keanu Reeves and have a small research facility in an abandoned steel plant on the outskirts of Chicago....

supposedly based on my campus. filmed there too. then the idiots blew it up.