Where should we build the Fusion Reactor?

Ted Striker · December 21, 2003, 04:48

Quote:

The ITER project is to be a joint venture between the United States, China, Russia, South Korea, the European Union and Japan.

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science...eut/index.html

Personally I like the Japanese site.

USA, Korea, and Japan favor the Japanese site.

Eurocoms and China like the French site.

Obviously some of this is politically motivated but what about some third party site like Mexico, Brazil or Italy.

self biased · December 21, 2003, 05:03

go for france. if it blows up, it doesn't nuke anything important. just eurodisney.

Dis · December 21, 2003, 05:06

U.S.

BeBro · December 21, 2003, 05:10

Iraq

Ted Striker · December 21, 2003, 05:11

No blood for fusion reactors!

Combat Ingrid · December 21, 2003, 05:14

I think it's more important they build it rather than where they build it. Voted for the French site though because I would like to go there and see this thing live some day

Gatekeeper · December 21, 2003, 05:14

Ideally, a place that isn't prone to earthquakes, is temperate, and has access to a large source of water.

Gatekeeper

BeBro · December 21, 2003, 05:15

Then Japan is out.

Gatekeeper · December 21, 2003, 05:30

Heh. Pretty much any place along the Pacific Ring of Fire, including the West Coast of the United States.

DRoseDARs · December 21, 2003, 05:32

Hence my vote for France.

Gatekeeper · December 21, 2003, 05:39

Yeah, France sounds good for something that's experimental. Let them be the lab rats for once.

Gatekeeper

The Mad Monk · December 21, 2003, 05:43

I'm glad somebody noticed the volcanic arc...how the hell did Japan get on the short list?

DAVOUT · December 21, 2003, 05:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Yeah, France sounds good for something that's experimental. Let them be the lab rats for once.

Gatekeeper

Thanks. But it is an EU site which happens to be anecdotically located in France.

Gatekeeper · December 21, 2003, 05:57

I'm sure the French will sincerely value the distinction, DAVOUT. You hear that, France! You're just an a vague part of the might European Union! You have no real individual identity now! Ha! You have been assimilated!

Heh. The French province of the European Union will make a fine location for the experimental fusion reactor.

Gatekeeper

Drake Tungsten · December 21, 2003, 06:16

Who cares about earthquakes? I'm pretty sure a reactor that's built to contain the fires of creation could handle a little ground-shakage...

Az · December 21, 2003, 07:28

Funny, isn't it? I think it won't.

I chose france. And as Combat has put it, the most important thing is that we'll build it. EXTREMELY important. Of course, what really pisses me off is that anyone of the countries above could've done it by itself with proper funding ( I am not talking pie in the sky here, either, btw, esp. since the ENORMOUS save on oil will cover it in, oh, a year, or so. )

Kuciwalker · December 21, 2003, 11:05

Give France the sabotaged version. We already hit Japan with a nuclear bomb

Dr Strangelove · December 21, 2003, 11:12

What are the chances that this thing is actually going to generate more energy than it consumes? No one has yet to build a fusion reactor that produces a significantly positive yield of electricty, so what is the point of building this thing?

Spiffor · December 21, 2003, 11:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
No one has yet to build a fusion reactor that produces a significantly positive yield of electricty, so what is the point of building this thing?

To experiment, so that the production processes become more efficient?

Urban Ranger · December 21, 2003, 12:09

Maybe if we build a really big version, we can leap through the threshold.

OzzyKP · December 21, 2003, 12:32

I've got some room in my basement.

Pekka · December 21, 2003, 12:45

Finland. Because we rule and could provide all the water, stable conditions (no earthquakes, no storms) and because we deserve it being good sports.

Plus politically we are more neutral than any of these countries, so there would be no beef and complaining.

Kuciwalker · December 21, 2003, 12:55

But you're Finns!

Ted Striker · December 21, 2003, 15:22

Actually Finland DOES sound like a good idea...

VJ · December 21, 2003, 15:37

Finland +1

Sandman · December 21, 2003, 15:44

I'm really not sure. The South of France is close to an earthquake zone as well. I don't know if it actually suffers from tremors, however.

Boris Godunov · December 21, 2003, 15:46

France. Keep it as far away from China as possible.

Giant_Squid · December 21, 2003, 17:08

France. Get it nice and close to CERN so the scientists can visit each other on weekends.

Pekka · December 21, 2003, 18:05

Also we're more safe more possible terror attacks. We can provide the security to it, plus we'd benefit from the visitors if there are some. Also we have no agendas or power struggle. Geographically using the eurocentric world view, we are center, and top, which makes the distance to the Fusion Reactor almost the same for everyone (Japan, the US, Asia, Europe naturally closer, but there's a sea between us), so.. bring it on. We can offer unbiased location and perhaps the most stable conditions and location.

Lonestar · December 21, 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
Also we're more safe more possible terror attacks. We can provide the security to it, plus we'd benefit from the visitors if there are some.

Yeah, because there are wwwwwwwwwaaaayyyy more Muslims with which (most) Terrorists can hide in Japan, then say, France.