Fusion falters as costs soar

[astroron]

What an incredible project:scared:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8103557.stm

[Enchilada]

Oh dear, oh dear. Sure fusion research is fascinating, but few have ever claimed fusion as main source of energy before 2050.
I.e. See the earlier article, "Nuclear fusion: A necessary investment" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6158040.stm , which says; "As for the timescale, fusion certainly wouldn't be available in the short-term, but the problem of providing viable energy sources is not going to get easier even if conservation, CO2 sequestration, fission and renewables are more widely used, and there are currently no other large-scale options beyond the 20-50-year timeframe"

Like most new research their is absolutely no guarantees when it comes to results. If you don't try, you don't know. "Fusion falters under soaring costs" - is really misleading.

The problem is far more likely to do with the global turndown where research programs have been stalled for a year or two before funding is reintroduced. With the US being the major source of the funding
As for them saying; "Emails leaked to the BBC indicate that construction costs for the experimental fusion project called Iter have more than doubled." I'd really love to know who leaked them, because if MI5 catch 'em, they should be put in jail for eternity for espionage. So much for the project's security!

This is yet again the BBC spreading more disinformation and out and out trying to grab the headline.

Note: I think it would have better suggested that it would be better to visit the Iter site at http://www.iter.org/default.aspx Just read the topics in the Menu - especially the sections as "The Science" and "The Project."

Note 2: If you want to read much more on the topic regarding the budget issue; http://www.lesechos.fr/journal20090616/lec1_les_strategies/4875481-le-projet-de-recherche-iter-toujours-plus-cher.htm

(As it is in French, you can translate it using Yahoo! Babel Fish at http://babelfish.yahoo.com/, and just paste the above address into the "Translate a Webpage.")

Note 3: Ron, just a small suggestion. If you must post these articles, I would suggest you also look at the linked articles, and if necessary, compare them to the original sources. If you see significant differences, it is best to be sceptical and critical. Any article on fusion IMO is interesting, but I do suggest for more interest you might like to see how basic news articles fit into the primary sources.

[astroron]

Note 3: Ron, just a small suggestion. If you must post these articles, I would suggest you also look at the linked articles, and if necessary, compare them to the original sources. If you see significant differences, it is best to be sceptical and critical. Any article on fusion IMO is interesting, but I do suggest for more interest you might like to see how basic news articles fit into the primary sources.
I post em people can judge em:)
You are not the judge and jury on this site:screwy:

[tornado33]

I think they are barking up the wrong tree anyway. Rather than trying to heat up the fuel to millions of degrees, then try and confine it enough to fuse, then try and get a net energy gain,colliding beam aneutronic fusion (http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/14/2.html) might be the go



This article too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migma)


They should fund more of these experiments. A lot cheaper. Easier to acellerate particles to a modest 100 kev than folling around with the massive ITER

Note its possible to directly convert the fusion to electricity, no boiling water to make steam. If they could pull it off that means very cheap reliable power from a reactor with virtually no moving parts.

[Enchilada]

???

All written text has its pros and cons. Subjective or false statements, especially in the media, are crucial to correct and/or expose. IMO the BBC Science site is poorly expressed and tends to state sensationalism over the facts.
This BBC article here has many flaws and deceptions. Are we suppose to ignore them, and lead others here astray? In the end, all I've done is state an opinion.

[Enchilada]

Agree with the funding. Much of the ITE is to do experimentation on methods of the processes that is the most efficient - it is such a massive learning curve. :thumbsup:

[Enchilada]

Ah! All is further revealed in another BBC article "Climate 'meltdown', yet fusion lags.", which was written by Richard Black, the environment corespondent on the 19th June 2009. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/06/climate_meltdown_yet_fusion_la.html

The 140 comments are most interesting, and kind of makes my earlier point about the questionable issues towards the BBC on-line actual credibility. The whole aim in the first article on the budget problems with the fusion (as astroron first sent), is actually the wild desperation by the environmentalist for action on climate change - basically stating of the lack of alternative source - fusion being one possibility. Really, the whole message is confusing to say the least. :screwy: Which is true? :shrug:

Instead of investigation and clarifying the situation, all the BBC on-line site is doing is just muddying the waters. :shrug: Why would a 'reliable' media organisation do this? Weird.