objetions to fusion project

Quote:

---

The US, in particular, has raised objections to the French option, citing its opposition to the Iraq invasion.

---

from here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3336701.stm

can I just say that objecting to the citing of this thing on French soil for the reason gven by the US government above is bloody childish. If the US government is going to object to building this thing in France it should be done on the grounds of safety, suitability of the location in physical terms (e.g. is the French facility on solid bedrock, is there a likelihood of earthquake or extreme weather conditions etc), is there proper technical and economic back up in France etc not on the grounds of the US has a bit of a gripe with France because of Iraq.

Anyone from the US care to comment.... I don't know if we're getting the full picture here - maybe you guys who know whats happening in your country could enlighten us??

Z

PS and look on the bright side if it blows up, you get rid of the French :D (apologies to any French people here but I couldn't resist that jab)

Funny, I haven't seen that in the news at all.... maybe I better flip on CNN. I would think that something like that would be prominent on the news....as usual though... Kolbe Bryant in court, student missing from a North Dakota college...a brief blurb about Iraq....some prominent coach fired...pretty typical.

Actually, I rather depend on news from other countries to for my information. A few years ago, the prime minister/president (whatever) of Sierra Leone survived a coup attempt... I saw the news online...it never even made the national news....

It seems that all France really has to offer is a better climate..and some nearby research facilities, so it would appear on the surface that Japan would be a better choice.

Yeah, citing resistance to war in Iraq is probably childish, but what are you gonna do? That's just the way it works..I'm sure the US government is going to take every opportunity to punish France and Germany..

Quote:

---

Yeah, citing resistance to war in Iraq is probably childish, but what are you gonna do? That's just the way it works..I'm sure the US government is going to take every opportunity to punish France and Germany..

---

I daresay it will... however the fusion project is an international project and the terms of placement should not therefore be dictated by the US (or any single country with a stake in it for that matter). Given that the project could provide relatively inexpensive energy for the whole planet (or at least a good proportion of it - i.e. the Western world) it means that none of us will be so dependant on oil for reasons of fuel etc. It would also break the back of oil barons in certain countries in the middle east (which may or may not be a good thing)

Now before you say 'we have Texas for our oil' can I point out one thing..... fuel is not the only purpose of oil... the manufacture of plastics is directly dependant on oil as a base material. Once the oil is gone no more plastics - which of course means no more computers! No more paint, no more TV, no more CD'DVD's, no more ipod's (or whatever MP3 player you prefer) or anything else that relies upon plastics (which as I look around my room means a significant proportion of my enjoyment would be gone).

You say France only really offers a better climate... true... but when you're building a fusion reactor I think being aware of the risk of typhoon's and earthquakes (which is what they do have in Japan) is something that should figure quite highly in ones reckoning - I personally don't fancy a fusion reactor blowing up because an unexpectedly nasty typhoon screwed things up - stability of climate is quite important on this issue.

Just some things to think about - would a letter to your local senator or whoever (not too up on US politics I'm afraid so this might be naive thinking) help??

Z

I agree it is a good idea...anything that gets governments working together, IMHO, is worthwhile. Anything that decreases dependency on oil for energy purposes is a good idea....

Considering the current geopolitical climate, it will require alot of give and take from all sides, I'm concerned that all egos concerned will need much soothing before any agreement can be reached.

Our senator seems too busy criticizing everything President Bush to be making any kind of changes...(election year coming up)...and our lone congressman was just convicted of manslaughter, and will be resigning his post in January....

if this whole thing is just a prototype for experimenting then maybe it would serve the world best to be placed in a country where power is scarce and not just inconviently expensive. when the experimenting is over and the plant is functional it could serve to help bring a third world nation into the 21st century

sorry this is probably a stupid question to some of you (dont know much about nuclear fusion-most in my grade, but not much compared to you guys from what i can tell). is it at all possible that this nuclear reactor could be a possible target from terrorists? i mean its obvously going to be hugely protected against such things, but still, personally i dont want any nuclear reactors going off anywhere, even if its not in my own country. yea id havta agree with you guys, lame excuse from the US (even tho im republican :) ). Japan should not have reactors, way too many earthquakes and natural disasters over there...

deimos a basic idea of fusion can be found here

http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion1.html

like any high energy power source yes a fusion generator could be a target for terrorist activity.... but its the same with fission reactors that are presently in use. In some respects a fusion reactor is nowhere near as dangerous because it doesn't use stuff like plutonium or uranium as a source of material. .. but in other respects it is more dangerous because it gives off a hell of a lot more power (or can do if used properly).

've been out for the night down the pub so I'm not firing on all cylinders at the moment... but basically yeah you would not want this going off anywhere near you if it were to be blown up.

Z

PS Ted ...yeah ideally that would be sound... but it would require a huge amount of investment in the host countries infrastructure that I really don't think any western nation/conglomerate would be willing to fund. The cost would be ... well.... extortionate... compared to just building this thing in a relatively high tech country that already has the required infrastructure in place

anyway I'm going to bed to sleep off the alcohol... night all :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tedob1
if this whole thing is just a prototype for experimenting then maybe it would serve the world best to be placed in a country where power is scarce and not just inconviently expensive. when the experimenting is over and the plant is functional it could serve to help bring a third world nation into the 21st century

---

Yeah, we'll build one in Iraq, they need power. And Libya too, their light are always out. North Korea has the same problems.

Yep, just what I want. Another unstable third-world nation with little to no leadership having the power to make nukes.

I think keeping fusion power in the hands of those who have already proven they can use it responsibly is a better idea.

And why the hell is France's opposition to the Iraqi War a reason to not build a plant there? I guess it is in the eyes of the United States, of course, because anybody disagreeing with them must be wrong. And therefore not to be trusted with fusion power. What a ****ing ludicrous connection. Do they not realize that they are the only country in the world holding this point of view? And that nobody else cares what they say about France opposing the war?

No. Because thier leaders are too arrogant and introverted with thier heads so far stuck in the sand that's prbobably how they're spying on China these days.

Sheesh.

Quote:

---

And why the hell is France's opposition to the Iraqi War a reason to not build a plant there? I guess it is in the eyes of the United States, of course, because anybody disagreeing with them must be wrong. And therefore not to be trusted with fusion power. What a ****ing ludicrous connection. Do they not realize that they are the only country in the world holding this point of view? And that nobody else cares what they say about France opposing the war?

---

that was my original point although not put quite so eloquently ;). I was wondering what anyone else, especially Americans thought of it. I'd rather get the views of American people rather than the views of a politician or journalist (thats not to say I don't want to hear from anyone else of course... any French or Japanese people around here got comments??)

I can see Ted's point about putting it in a third world country (I'm thinking more of Eastern Europe or parts of South Africa rather than the middle east) as it would basically force said country into the 21st century (new jobs, huge amounts of cash going in to the country, forced upgrades to infrastructure etc). However as altruistic as this point of view is, as I indicated I really can't see this happening. Mainly because it would cost way too much but also because there are a number of problems associated with it... imagine if you will

The fusion reactor gets built in say Romania (as an example).... the western world puts its people in the better jobs because after all we have the technical know how. The more menial and low wage jobs are left to the Romanians. We take advantage of our positions in said country (you know we would - its human nature) and start treating the people in Romania as third class citizens. Discontent arises its ugly head, the people of Romania decide (rightly) that maybe they've had enough of other people telling them what to do... chuck out the westerners... and they are left with a fusion reactor they may not know how to maintain properly or if they do... well it's hold the world to ransom time - you give us what we want or we turn off the power.

The above situation is highly simplified I know, but it's not hard to imagine. It need not be like that of course, but I'm cynical and really don't think that humans would co operate for the betterment of the species when they can lie, cheat and backstab each other in an effort to be king of the hill.

Z

I finally saw an article on MSN.com today about the project...but it says nothing about the "politics" involved, only

Quote:

---

We have two excellent sites ... so excellent in fact, that we need further evaluation before making our decisions based on consensus," according to the statement.

---

Pretty typical for American press..

http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3769508&p1=0

when it came in news?
i didn't saw it?
a scientific study shouldn't b stopped
afterall we r too dependent on oil