×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
9

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

2
(OP)
The European Union, Japan, the U.S., Russia, China and South Korea have chosen France to be the home of an experimental nuclear fusion reactor that's worth $13 billion.

This reactor is supposed to be a source of cleaner energy while making it more as well. The technology could lead to less use of fossil fuels that pollute the environment.

The reactor is called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). It is supposed to produce the same type of energy as that of the sun and other stars.

Nuclear fusion is said to produce minimal amounts of toxic waste, and no greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming. Bloomberg News explains:

Fusion, the process that powers stars, could be cheaper and safer than fission, the action at the core of contemporary nuclear power plants. Uniting the atoms of lightweight elements such as hydrogen instead of splitting apart heavier elements such as uranium produces much more energy with a fraction of the radioactivity.

The six members of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, which means ``the way'' in Latin, agreed in Moscow today to build the facility in the southern French city of Cadarache, rather than Rokkasho-Mura, the Japanese location favored by the U.S. and South Korea.

"We are dealing with the question of how to address sustainable energy in the future," said the European commissioner for science and research, Janez Potocnik. "And fusion looks very promising."

It may be 50 years before the project actually becomes commercially useful according to some people that are opposed to the project. It will take 10 years to build anyway.

Could this be the answer?

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Sure. It could be. Certainly worth investigating, and I doubt that industry is prepared to spend a couple of decades to find out.

Bear in mind that it will still generate a lot of hazardous waste - the entire facility will slowly become radioactive.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Interesting to compare 'hazardous waste' output from ITER, PWR and conventional coal-fired:
http://www.iter.org/index.htm

Good Luck
johnwm
________________________________________________________
To get the best from these forums read FAQ731-376 before posting

UK steam enthusiasts: www.essexsteam.co.uk

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

I seem to recall they split the atom when they were pushed to it, so why not this.
I thick future oil shortages will spur on the politicians and they’ll be no shortage of money for it.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

2
Sorry to burst the bubble, but there's no technological fix to the world's energy woes.  Not fusion, not hydrogen and fuelcells, not biofuels- there's no single magic bullet out there.  

Until people at large stop hoping for the magic technological fix that will let us keep doing what we're already doing, and until politicians and technological snake-oil salesmen stop selling it to them, people won't get down to the only real, sustainable, long-term solution:  reducing consumption.

Technology, and engineers, have LOTS to offer in this regard.  And there's no need to spend billions in the hope of inventing something magical in fifty years to get it done- we can do it now with existing technology.  Remember that fusion ALREADY has a fifty year history BEHIND it.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

OK mm. At present the 1/10 of the world's population that is called "First world" use about 32 times as much energy each as the Third World. That gives  total energy useage of about 4.1 arbitrary units.

In the next twenty years India and China will be trying to move to First World standards of living.

This will increase the number of first worlders by a factor of three. Therefore the energy useage will jump to 10.7

So, you need to start designing systems that are 2.5 to 3 times as efficient as today's. Or reduce your energy consumption by 70%. Or find a new source of energy. Or a sensible mix of the above.

I do not understand why you say fusion won't work. It has worked for billions of years.

I just checked the price of cars. For a typical car in Australia fuel cost is about 16% of the total running cost per km. So why would I give a monkey's about the fuel economy? And this with the most expensive oil ever? (To quote stupid alarmist headlines)

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Interestingly, in my paper amonmg those opposed are Greenpeace.

How's that for irony? I guess they want the money spent on wind turbines instead.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Once more..

Greenpeace are not opposed to the idea of fusion reactors per se but argue that it will be 50 years before any benefit might be forthocoming at a time when it is necessary to reduce emmissions now. Given the high cost and unproven technology they argue the money could be better spent elsewhere. Seems a reasonable point of view. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/29/wnuke29.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/29/ixworld.html

My understanding of the current technology is that so far they haven't been able to produce more energy froma fusion reactors than they put into it. Just because it works in the centre of the sun doesn't mean that it's easy to do here on Earth.

corus

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Yes, Greg, we'll be choking on our own filth unless we do something sensible with respect to energy consumption.  We're choking on our own filth NOW, and the development of the so-called "Third World" will add to that dramatically.

My point is that we'll have to do things differently than what we're doing now.  If that's not also your point, what is your point?

What's my problem with fusion as an energy source?  It's hard to do!  It's no nearer to feasibility now than it was fifty years ago.  My problem with fusion is that it's a distraction from our REAL options- options we can pursue NOW.

My problem with the ITER project and its ilk are that we're going to see billions of government dollars (read my tax dollars and yours) wasted on a megaproject boondoggle when it could be spent actually solving the world's current problems with existing technology!

I'm neither a Green nor a member of Greenpeace, Greg.  I'm an engineer and a pragmatist.  Our energy needs will increase, even if we seek conservation aggressively- but since every source of energy has some degree of environmental impact, we'd better get serious about conservation NOW.  

As engineers we CAN do LOTS to improve the current situation by improving things on both the energy demand AND supply sides.  But if people are holding out hope that we'll simply invent our way out of the problem so we can keep doing what we're doing now, there'll be no willingness to do what actually NEEDS to be done NOW.

And your point about the cost of fuel for vehicles is dead right.  It points to the fact that the entirety of the costs associated with the production of that fuel are not borne directly by those who consume it.  And there are some costs which just plain do not show up in the economic equation now and they MUST do so.  Fuel prices MUST rise until they start affecting people's purchasing decisions for automobiles in a significant way.  If that has to happen by means of taxation, so be it!

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

I hadn't noticed this new thread when i posted a comment in the KyotoII thread so i will repeat my response to Corus here:

"When do they want the 50 years to start then?
What sort of guarantees do they want?

How will the design problems be solved without spending the money and getting stuck in?

6 billion is a lot of money, to you and me, chump change for Bill Gates and, in a multi national consortium deal probably a whole lot less than is being consumed in subsidies for wind turbines.

Most governments can waste that sort of money on beurocracy without even missing it, they can always get more... from you and me.

Besides when was it ever a case of government funding being either spent on this or spent on that? If the money isn't spent on this do they think it will be wisely spent on what they want? That argument hasn't worked with politicians since the dawn of time."

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Anybody remember cold fusion and the ensuing fiasco it caused? Or the failed promises of high temperature superconductors? Or the superconducting supercollider project that ran out of funding during the construction phase? They spent close to 3 billion dollars of our tax money to construct tunnels on this project that are now used as mushroom farms. The ITER is the latest proposed megaexpensive physics project. Instead of spending this enormous amount of money on a single project, I believe that the money would be more wisely spent on several hundred smaller projects that could help us to accomplish the goals of energy conservation, while at the same time studying the feasibility of fusion as a possible alternative energy source. Why would we agree to spend over 10 billion dollars on a single project when they have yet to prove that breakeven is possible? I agree that it would be a very interesting pursuit, but from a financial perspective it is a terrible idea.

Maui

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

2
Some of you will remember the days before space flight. At the end of the first world war who would have thought that fifty years later men would be walking on the moon? How different would life be today if previous generations had failed to invest in the 'impossible' and the engineers of the time had not risen to the challenge? What if the nay-sayers of yesteryear had cancelled the Mercury or Gemini programmes when problems seemed insurmountable? Is solving problems and developing ideas into working solutions not the very foundation of our profession?

It is disappointing to see so much criticism, from engineers of all people, of a massive investment in civil R&D and engineering. Are these not the exact things we forever curse our governments for failing to do? We should be applauding the decision to build this plant, not deriding it.

----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

My understanding of the fusion project is that it has already been underway for the past 50 years and with no success. Certainly it may be worth waiting another 50 years, though given the success so far I'd prefer to see an equal amount spent on other projects as Maui suggests.

As for space flight, yes there were advances made but the only benefits from the project I can recall is teflon coated non-stick pans.

corus

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Corus:
You are right- it has served as a 50 year welfare program for nuclear physicists. It seems wasteful at first glance, but it has to be admitted that we will need to provide some form of welfare for several more  generations of nuclear engineers, technicians, and physicists simply to ensure that we always maintain a stable of competent persons that are available to deal with the long term maintainence needs of other nuclear technologies.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

davefitz:  so what you're advocating is a welfare program to babysit the previous generation's mistakes?!

just kidding!

Fission power has a lot of drawbacks, not least of which is that it must be a megaproject by its nature.  Humans haven't figured out how to run megaprojects efficiently yet, and the economics of such situations make it unlikely we'll ever learn.  But just like democracy is "the worst form of government ever invented- except for all the others we've tried", fission may be our best use of finite resources going forward.  Far better than mining and dumping the entire historical reserve of fossil fuels in to the atmosphere, along with all the radionucleides trapped therein!

I'm all for pure research.  I even support far-reaching development projects like this one- under certain conditions.  If we could divert the portion of the U.S. "defence" budget currently spent on the Iraqi war effort into the peaceful use of fusion energy, perhaps I wouldn't be so dead-set against it.  

The reality is, the money to support ITER will be obtained by diverting a portion of each nation's existing research and development funding away from smaller, shorter-term and probably far more useful projects.  Politicians like megaprojects because it gives them photo-opportunities cutting ribbons and the like- stuff that smaller, more useful but less "sexy" projects don't offer to the same degree.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Actually, Schumacher may have been right when he said "Small is Beautiful"

The trouble with politicians is they like to be grandiose and score brownie points by thinking big.

If we were asked what we would want fusion power plants to look like I can bet that it isn't what the politicos propose.

If I had my way they'd target for many millions of individual power plants rather than one giant one with its need for a sophisticated grid; If the one big power plant breaks, we will all die for lack of energy.

I say design them car engine size.

Actually, what do you all think? what would be the three top design features you would want from a modern fission power palnt?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

By the way, in the context of global research budgets, 13 billion is peanuts. That's roughly what the auto industry will spend next year making sure that you have a DVD player for every passenger, the seats match the carpets, and designing a slightly heavier car to make up for the slightly more efficient engine.

It costs between 1 and 6 billion to design a new car, are you seriously implying that the possible prospect of a long term solution to energy "shortages" is not worth a bit more than that to society as a whole?

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Considering that my nation's tax dollars aren't involved in a significant way, I'm all for it!

But if any of my tax dollars are involved, I know where they'll be coming from:  the budgets of projects which are more deserving because they're more likely to yield near-term benefit for people.  There's no way they're coming out of the budgets of schools and hospitals.

Yes, this is peanuts in terms of the world's overall spending priorities and economic activity.  But believe me, there are any number of worthy purposes to put 13 billion dollars against, and all of them compete with one another on their merits.  If the beneficial result is at least fifty years out, and the beneficial result will still be mega-project and hence mega-corporation based, it's not worth much expenditure in terms of where I'd like to see my tax dollars spent.

Moreover, research isn't product development.  How much money does the auto industry actually spend on research rather than product development?  13 billion as a measure of the world's government-funded spending on pure research looks a bit less trivial than your comparison would suggest.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Well, the US involvement with ITER is currently in jeopardy.  According to what I just read in Physics Today, the House of Representatives passed a bill (Energy and Water Development Appropriations) containing an ammendment to kill US ITER funding until (at least) March 2006.  The aim apparently to find out where the 1 billion USD would be coming from.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

PSE,
how quaint. Politics of course, they know as well as you or I that the taxpayer pays, of course.
And why isn't this a concern for politicians when they want to invest in wind farms?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

OK, first of all, ITER will not employ many nuclear scientists.  The fusion program is a large plasma physics experiment, and will employ mostly plasma physicists.  Second, don't bet on the fifty-year number.  I worked on fusion projects over thirty years ago, and it was fifty years to reactors then.  Third, high temperature superconductor technology did not involve any significant research money to develop, and the technology has been successful and is being used, and ultimately will play a significant role in reducing transmission line losses and, assuming ITER works, nuclear fusion reactors.  Fourth, there is a new generation of nuclear reactors (pebble bed) that have been developed around the HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS REACTOR concept that are inherently safe and small, with easy refueling.

Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

jmw (13 Jul 05)
Then there’s the report from Green Peace of the number of birds (read that Bald Eagles) killed by wind farms.
I read an article today regarding the use of ocean currents to drive very large undersea, propeller driven generators. So how many fish will be disected in the interest of our energy needs. Can We Win? There's always a down side and it's WE who must choose. Can we?
I’ am hoping we can...

pennpoint


 

 
  

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Fusion research is funded in the United States at the rate of about $300-400 million annually. Oil and gas research at about $3-4 billion annually. Like the oild companies need more government suppport. I know there may be no benefits for a long period of time but unless research is started in earnest it will be 100 years before fusion power is available.

I would also like to note that all our energy currently being used today in gas, oil, wind, hydroelectric or coal was produced from fusion energy, the sun. Fusion research continues both in hot fusion and cold fusion. Will either approaches work I don't know. I'm willing to put my tax dollars to work trying to find out if it will. Its a better place to put dollars instead of some of our current boondoggles. But there's a lot of pork being doled out in Washington these days.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Magnetic pinch... thank you James Tuck.... he didn't live to see it as a working source of energy..

ITER... better than NIF .. but on either experiments do you see a means to EXTRACT the energy produced .. cars without wheels!!

Just like Jtreglio... I too worked on FR 30 years ago and I knew Tuck ..fifty years before it works then and now still fifty years till it works.

JMW has it right .. smaller would be better

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

I believe that 10 billion dollars in R&D for nuclear fusion is not serious at all. To make fusion work we need to put real effort into it. What's 10 billions for the richest billion people (rich countries) on the planet.

May I remind you that before Manhattan project nobody was sure that nuclear fission was feasible, heck fisson of an atom was only a theory. But the US was desperate to get an edge to win the war so they got an hold of the best scientists around (as I recall there was something like 50 nobel prize winners involved in the Manhattan Project). Gave them real means to achieve their goals and political support. 2 years later they made an atomic bomb...

Nuclear Fusion is feasible, it's not something that only exists in sci fi movies. It's been done! Not for a long time but been done.

As for those who oppose about spending their tax dollars, let me remind you that the nuclear shield that the US research for is probably gonna cost 10 times those 10 billions. It has not been done, and is theorically imposible (I mean finding a fake among many missiles in outer space). Even worst,it cannot protect against terrorism and close range missiles.

There is no magic solution to any problems. But fusion is a viable solution in a 20-30 years future. Hopefully when we will manage our energies better.

BeerBaron

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Only when it REALLY matters to the general public will things change.

What difference would it make if the USA hiked fuel prices to European levels? How much money would it generated to research into alternative fuels? Will any politician actually do this until it will secure the vote of the general public and the support of the oil industries? Back to square one.

As Greg said he has to pay so little for fuel why should he care, why should anyone care? But if no one cares, things will get worse.

I would guess most people know we have a problem, but no one wants it to cost them money. At least this does seem a step forward, but is only the tip of the iceberg; remind me again what is an iceberg?

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Take away their cars and it will matter.
But the cure for any ill is not instant. When oil runs out you don't just go to the cupboard for the next fix. Someone has to invest the time and money ahead of time so that the solution is available when needed.

It is all in the PR. Say you are going to spend $13billion on a fusion reactor without having repaired the damage to the image of nuclear power done by Chernobyl, Three Mile Island etc. and you can guarantee public upset and that the money won't be spent. There is even doubt that money will be invested in new much much safer and affordable fission power even though we are a generation or two further forward in the technology; they'd rather stick in a few million wind farms.

With China piling into the car ownership stakes to the extent that their biggest bicycle manufacturer has gone bankrupt and there is now one car for every 125 people (I'd check that stat, it might have been per family or even well wrong, it was 125 somethings) they are competing heaviliy for fuel.

This brings foreward the inevitable day when the oil runs out.

Hindsight is a hell of a bad substitute for foresight.

Now try and put this $13billion in perspective.
It is less than BIll Gates net worth and even a few others.
Just how much fuel tax did the government (any government) collect last year?
I know hypothecation is a popular word with a certain senior politician in the UK but if ever there was a time to say, "We paid this much tax on energy, last year and we want some of this money spent on securing the energy supplies for our kids".

Think of it this way. Fossil fuels are an essential ingredient in the evolution of technology. Sure they are limited. So is capital. You use capital to invest in ideas and ideas generate income. In this case we use fossil fuels profligately to build markets and dependencies which justifies further investment to satsify that craving for energy when the fossil fuels run out.

The alternative? we could all go back to living as hunter gatheres chasing down the last Mammoths.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

This may come as a shcok, jmw, but all the Mammoths have gone. I think woolly hair went out of fashion, hence their demise.

I'd agree with you that the capital should be used to invest in ideas for the future and fossil fuels do build markets and dependencies, but then why is it that governments are making the investments and not the oil companies? These companies are currently seeing vast profits with the high oil prices but appear to offer nothing in return.

corus

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Dear Penpoint
I have read an article about using smaller scale wind generators (1kW)on top of parking structures at the Bay Area Rapid Transit Stations (San Francisco region) to charge the batteries in HEVs instead of directly producing electricity for the grid. Perhaps this would reduce the number of avian casualties while displacing gasoline?

Ashelin

jmw (13 Jul 05)
Then there’s the report from Green Peace of the number of birds (read that Bald Eagles) killed by wind farms.
I read an article today regarding the use of ocean currents to drive very large undersea, propeller driven generators. So how many fish will be disected in the interest of our energy needs. Can We Win? There's always a down side and it's WE who must choose. Can we?
I’ am hoping we can...

pennpoint

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

The Los Alamos Laboratory, or Project Y, came into existence in early 1943 ...On the afternoon of December 2, 1942,  Under the abandoned west stands of Stagg Field, the first controlled nuclear reaction occurred.

Fission was proven just before Los Alamos began, not by much. Oak Ridge was already underway tho is wasn't called Oak Ridge yet.. to produce uranium (U-235) or plutonium (Pu-238), the only suitable substances know by 1942.
 Project leaders did not know how quickly or how much of each they could produce, so they decided to produce both at the same time.
 
Fusion.. magnets or lasers.. try both.. very similar to the MP early days. While both are worth spending the money to develop.  A magnetic system will more than likely win out as you don't not have the complexity of targeting a fuel pellet and supplying pellets you can work with just the gas
they have been close to the break even point with magnetic.

But there again no one has a system in place to extract the energy, which unlike fission you can maintain a reaction level.fusion is going to be boom boom boom etc really moob moob moob. since it's imploding ...what is the method going to be to extract the power.. steam? let it run awhile like your car until the themostat opens.. how is the vessel wall going to be able to deal with that, what alloys will need to be developed that don't decay to the stress and neutron bombardment or taking linear generators to the next level

I want to see it happen.. fusion ...but don't rule out fission as it is available now... management of waste is a issue that can be dealt with a little better.. we don't have to wait 50 years

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

The only large scale survey I've seen for Avian deaths in windmills, says that each windmill will kill slightly less than one bird per year.

That does not seem unreasonable to me. There again I'm not a bird.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

I don't think that there is an energy consumption problem at all. The real problem is that there are too many people on the planet. Even if you fix the power problem with Fusion you will just run up against other problems like food, water, raw materials and landspace.

We already have all of the ingredients for sutainable power: Hydro, Tidal, Wind, Bio-fuels. We already have all of the technology to exploit these energy sources. The only real problem is the number of people. It is currently estimated that you would have to plant an area the size of the old West-Germany to supply Europe's fuel needs via bio-fuel. This is impractical. If the population of Europe was about 1/5th of what it is now, that would not be so big a deal

If you get everyone to be really energy efficient you might get down to 30-50% of current consumption in the first world. Move on 100 years and this saving will have been used up by population growth and we will be right back where we started.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

unfortunately we've got all those people now, and we'll be getting more in the future ... i think we'll push past the limits of the biosphere and suffer the consequences

unfortunately, i think the most positive thing we can do is hope it isn't on our watch !

and when we run out of oil, where are the petro-chemicals (plastics) going to come from ?  oil-sands ??

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Ah, but if you believe in reincarnation, which I do, it WILL be on "Your Watch", through whatever set of eyes you have at the time.

PwoaaaaaH! Deep Man!



RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Gas liquid conversion is proposed for feedstocks for plastics. Of course, this puts more presure on gas but then, many have been flaring gas to get at the oil or re-injecting it which affects well performance over a period.
Its a good, temporary solution. The next solution is bio sources just as it is for fuels. Don't forget that cellophane, for example, is derived from plant material and there is nothing ingenuity cant solve given the incentives and the right commercial environment. The gas to liquid conversion idea is quite old, 1930's Germany I believe. (synthocrude?)

On the population front, a high population at least gives us a a big market to provide the right commercial stimulas to develop the next generation of power. Just think where we'd be if our populations had stabilised at 1600's levels. Population control is something that will happen for the same reason everything else happens: necessity. In fact there is an old expression: "The rich get richer and the poor get children." We can see this mechanism at work even now. We can also se the value of the primogeniture system and we can see countries taking a semi responsible attitude to population control. I'm not sure that in some cases it doesn't produce some undesirable effects, but more sensitive and accepted systems will evolve.

One of the biggest roblems might be education. We seem to be dumbing down the populations almost with deliberate intent when we need better educated people now more than ever before.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

JMW

> On the population front, a high population at least gives us a a big market to provide the right commercial stimulas to develop the next generation of power.

This common attitude is why I predict we will continue digging an every deeper hole for ourselves. Are you suggesting that we just keep on expanding for ever?

> Just think where we'd be if our populations had stabilised at 1600's levels.

Sounds great, plenty of land for everyone, no resource problem whatsoever, especially if combined with modern technology.

> One of the biggest problems might be education. We seem to be dumbing down the populations almost with deliberate intent when we need better educated people now more than ever before.

Everyone can't be a rocket scientist, human labour is an honourable occupation, also humans are very environmentally friendly machines, they can ONLY consume renewables for food.

I don't think any of your arguments hold up to even gentle scrutiny.


RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

As jmw pointed out, plastics don't have to come from petroleum.  Henry Ford made a plastic Model T from the hemp plant, which is an excellent source of oil.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

gwolf
Although JMW might have had some flawed arguments, yours are not much better.
If we had 1600's population levels, yes there would be an abundance of land, but we would not have the technology we have today. There would be no money or reason to pursue new technology if we were not short on resources.  This is evident with the backlash over the money spent on ITER for future technological advance.  The public does not want to spend money unless they have to.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

UNLengineer - Would you please explain how you are arriving at your conclusions about technology and money from the premise, "If we had 1600's population levels"?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

To say that we would not have the technology we have today if we had lower population levels is not correct, I apologize.  The point I was trying to get across is that we as a human race do not dedicate as much time or money unless there is a clear reason to do so.  If we had an abundance of natural resources, then there would not be a clear reason to study sciences and therefore technology would suffer.  Although science would still advance, I don't believe that it would have advanced at the pace that it did.  As populations grow, so does the need for technology and the abundance of minds to create it.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Thank you.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

I have tried to crack this "technology saving the world" question for more than 20 years. I conclude that it can't. I think rb1957 summarised it well with: "i think we'll push past the limits of the biosphere and suffer the consequences"

I am now convinced that this process cannot be stopped. It will be interesting to see what happens.

gwolf.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

If there are a billion international taxpayers paying for $13b, that is $13 each.  

GregLocock is correct, that is peanuts.

The first world will be paying for an investing in big ideas that will bring the third world into the first.
Also, how about the list of contributing countries putting a combined effort into solving the problem instead of fighting each other over the scraps.  I think that is a more beautiful interpretation of what is happening.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

gwolf
With an unlimited supply of energy the biosphere can be made larger. What's the biggest cost of desalination? Energy. Fusion makes unlimited water from the ocean feasible.

What does it take for plants to grow? Light, water, dirt, carbon dioxide, and some minerals. Think of multi-story concrete growing houses. Light from fusion energy, water from desalination, dirt we can get, CO2 we got plenty, and minerals we have plenty. Control the growing conditions inside and crop yields would also go up. We could also put these structures in the most inhospitable places in the world and turn desert land into a growing factory.

The biggest problem with fusion is the demand for lots of consumable fuels would drop and the people holding the current energy stocks would suddenly find the profits drying up and stock prices falling.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

I have a design which I have chosen to share publicly rather than patent. I give this invention for free for the good of all mankind. Links at the end of this posting will hook you into detailed design specs. Go use!

My device is solar powered. It is powered by a large solar array and it converts minerals in the ground and gases in the air into a very useful product. This product can be burned to produce more power, processed into petroleum, worked with minimal effort into a strong, light, versatile building material, and finally can be used for food. This machine is self-replicating and requires minimal maintenance, it is also completely non-toxic and CO2 neutral (if burned). Some people call them trees.

gwolf.

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

p.s. These machines cost about 5$ to make and install and will yield about $50-$1000/year in useful product depending on what version of the machine you choose and how long you let it run for. Lead time for the simplest units is about 10 years, 50 for the more sophisticated ones and 100-300 years for the A+ grade stuff.

Even on the most pessimistic financial estimates this is a really good return.


RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

UNLengineer.. would that be Uni. Ne. Lincoln? If so we need to hook up.. being a Ne. person myself

RE: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Humans are like any living thing:  they grow until limited by a limiting resource, whether that be a nutrient, space in a niche, or a waste product.  In our case, technology has helped us remove one limiting resource after another. But it can't help us with our biological drives to procreate.  Ultimately it may be our waste products which limit us.

"Development" has tended to limit population growth somewhat.  But it has also caused resource consumption to explode.  Fewer people, but more consumption per person, still equals environmental disaster.

Is energy the only limiting factor?  If we have limitless energy will we be home free?  Depends on your values, I guess.

Personally, I see the evil as being the whole definition of "economic growth".  Economic growth is a pyramid scam- a geometric series, fundamentally unsustainable.  It rewards consumption, which is the very thing we've got to get a handle on if we're going to survive as a species.  The sooner we learn to live without "economic growth", the better off we'll all be.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources