French Fusion Reactor: Fact & Fiction

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the ITER fusion reactor and skepticism regarding its potential energy output. Claims that ITER could provide double the world's energy needs are challenged, with a clarification that it is expected to produce around 500 MW, which is significantly less than the current global energy demands. Participants express confusion over various environmental claims, particularly regarding CFCs and their role in ozone depletion. It is noted that CFCs do not trap UV radiation but instead contribute to ozone destruction, with one CFC molecule capable of destroying thousands of ozone molecules. The conversation highlights the need for accurate information on both fusion energy and environmental science, emphasizing the importance of separating these topics for clarity.
Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
French fusion reactor and some other skeptical stuff

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050627-10372700-bc-nukefusion.xml

Someone brought this up on a non-scientific site and said it would "provide 2x the worlds energy". Obvious BS so I am wondering if this thing even surpasses zero-energy. If so, how much is it slated to create?

haha also, some other "facts" i need checked.

1) CFC's keep in 7,000x as much UV radiation then ozone
2) Most cancer cases are from UV exposure (haha oh god)
3) Ozone holes are one of the biggest problems ever
4) http://www.theozonehole.com (reliable?)
5) Our entire "trosphere" is covered in harmful gases (mainly CFC's)
6) The ozone hole has closed 20% since '03
7) If the ozone gets down to 35%, everyone will get cancer and die within months


I figure #2 is wrong but i don't know about the rest. I'm tryen to look up #1 but if anyone knew off the top of their heads about the rest, id appreciate the information on it.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Anyone wanan take a stab at any of this lol
 
The facts are hopelessly confused.

1) CFC's keep in 7,000x as much UV radiation then ozone

Convoluted and wrong. It's atmosperic ozone that (effectively) absorbs UV, releasing heat in the process. CFCs form radicals which effectively destroy ozone in a chain radical process, in which CFC radicals are regenerated by UV light. As I remember, a single CFC molecule can destory x thousands of ozone molecules in it's lifetime in the atmosphere (is that were the 7000x comes from?).

But what does this have to do with ITER?
 
Oh it was a big thread about various environmental issues. Someone brought up ITER saying that it was going to produce 2x the world's energy requirements. Is this true? What are the real facts?

And when do i learn about radicals in college? Introductory chemistry?

I also have no idea what he meant by 7000x. The verbatim statement was "this gases traps heat in our atmosphere and uv rays from the sun 1,500 to 7,000 more then carbon dioxide does ( depending on exactly what)"
 
Pengwuino said:
Oh it was a big thread about various environmental issues. Someone brought up ITER saying that it was going to produce 2x the world's energy requirements. Is this true? What are the real facts?

It is a little confusing to mix the two.

And when do i learn about radicals in college? Introductory chemistry?

No, most radicals are found in the liberal arts building. :smile:

In this country they are called free radicals. :smile: :smile: :smile:

Lets keep this thread about the claims made. We shouldn't mix these with the news report. I'll start another thread about that.
 
rofl a bunch of english majors are floating in the atmosphere :D

So what is this ITER and what are its benefits/claims?
 
Whoops, I was going to start another thread but I hadn't even looked at the title of this one. Please keep this thread about one issue: The "Fusion site expected to go to France" story. If it get derailed and goes all directions, I will just have to split or close the thread.
 
Well it was all about another thread that was about environmental issues and someone brought up the ITER as being some great solution for environmental problems. There were all "facts" brought up by one guy in a thread and i was just wondering if any of its true as they are somewhat related.
 
Ok so it says on its website that it will produce 500MW of power... since say, watts bar reactor 1 makes 1.1GW, i hardly consider this to be 2x the worlds energy demands lol. Does anyone know the feasability of the reactor?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top