http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8913865
"Science's quest to find a cheap and inexhaustible way to meet global energy needs took a major step forward on Tuesday when a 30-nation consortium chose France to host the world's first nuclear fusion reactor.
The 10-billion-euro ($12,053,194,436.95) experimental reactor that should now begin taking shape in Cadarache, southern France, will seek to turn seawater into fuel by mimicking the way the sun produces energy.
But critics argue it could be at least 50 years before a commercially viable reactor is built, if at all."
LOL, pass it off to France. "Not In My Backyard!"
But really, I'm also kinda excited. It's a long way off, but workable fusion power is definitely cool.
Heh, and what do you know? Simcity 2000 was right. We do get fusion power in 2050. :)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000101&sid=ag_J68SA0_G8
> Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in the production of radioactive waste, the risks of accidents and proliferation,'' said Frederic Miller, head of Greenpeace France's nuclear campaign, in an e-mailed statement. France seems hypnotized by this absurd project.''Greenpeace sure has a solid understanding of the issues involved!
For as long as they don't build it in an atoll in the south pacific, I don't mind.
Fusion is reportedly safe. The only possible foreseeable "problem" that I can think of would be the disposal of the radioactive walls of the reactor later on, but that's somehow a minor problem.
Here is a better "negative review":
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=39558
To simplify the article: for fusion to work one needs very high temperatures. But if the temperature is too high the reactor will melt. Therefore, the project is doomed from the start (says the author, who is an oil industry commentarist.)
Oh wow, how insightful. It's too bad none of those dumbass scientists thought of that one before they started the project!
Well, "if the project fails, then it means it was a failure" is a better argument than the Greenpeace one. :)
Another evidence that Greenpeace is losing it:
"Greenpeace opposes wind farm plan"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4415787.stm
"Greenpeace is concerned that a variety of rare birds, including golden eagles, merlins, dunlins and greenshanks, could be displaced or killed by the development."
What about the flies killed by the blades? Somebody, please think of the poor flies.
GREENPEACE WILL NOW OPPOSE EVERYTHING:
http://www.satirewire.com/news/june02/greenpeace.shtml
The best part of this article is how it cleverly sidesteps the Onion-style "The headline is the entire joke" syndrome.
I think the main point the author of the link in >>6 was driving at is that, given that we're likely going to be having shortages of cheap energy before fusion reactors become commercially viable, it would be better to fund research in further-developed and cheaper technologies. While I agree with that particular assertion, I disagree with his overall analysis. I'm also loathe to consider pure research as a dime and dollar operation.
As for Greenpeace... they have their hearts in the right place, but also seem to ignore their heads. Take their stance on nuclear tech. I guess they never considered the ramifications of other energy-extraction methods becoming widespread.
>>10
Greenpeace seems to take issue with technology more complicated than banging rocks together. Sure, I'm not the greatest fan of disposing of nuclear waste, but I like the idea of shoving barrels into deep, deep holes in subduction zones and oceanic rifts than I do breathing in smoke from huge filth-spewing power plants until the whole world smells like an ashtray.
Yes and no. Greenpeace advocates the advancement of certain techologies over others. For example, in Australia, they're currently trying to drum up support against the government for cutting research into wind power and other renewable technologies. They're also quite into computers as a social network.
But I think they missed the point regarding nuclear power. It's probably a remnant of their hippie origins. After all, Greenpeace was originally created to oppose the testing of nuclear bombs. I wish they'd outgrow that though.
It's hard to take them seriously when they then turn around and oppose wind power when somebody actually tries to use it.
They only seem to want wind and solar power up until the point where you actually have to build the installations somewhere, which will always be disruptive because these are large things.
How about both?
Progress doesn't have to come at the expense of everything around us.
Wouldn't that be kind of bloody?
since when was nuclear fusion generating radioactive waste?
its duterium and tritinum put together to make helium.
Helium, and a neutron. The neutron is slowed and captured by the reactor housing, creating a possibly radioactive isotope. There are fusion processes that don't generate neutrons, but they are much harder to ignite and keep running.
Few of the generated isotopes will be anywhere near as nasty as the stuff you find in fission waste, though.