ITER: Nuclear Fusion Reactor Agreement Signed

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Iter Work
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the recent signing of an agreement to construct the ITER nuclear fusion reactor, exploring its implications, potential challenges, and the broader context of energy production. Participants express varying degrees of optimism and skepticism regarding the feasibility and outcomes of the project, as well as its impact on other energy sources.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express surprise that the ITER project has moved forward after a decade of negotiations, highlighting the international collaboration involved.
  • There are concerns about whether ITER will successfully produce a sustainable fusion reaction and whether it will lead to economically viable electricity generation.
  • One participant suggests that for long-term feasibility, ITER should transition from deuterium-tritium (DT) fusion to deuterium-deuterium (DD) or deuterium-helium-3 (DHe3) fusion, though challenges regarding the availability and cost of He3 are noted.
  • Another participant raises skepticism about the funding and resources allocated to ITER, questioning whether it detracts from investments in renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential radiation issues associated with DT fusion, particularly regarding neutron-induced radioactivity and material degradation over time.
  • Some participants argue that existing nuclear fission technologies could be deployed more rapidly and economically than waiting for fusion advancements, citing the urgency of addressing climate change.
  • Technical discussions include the effects of high-energy neutrons on reactor materials and the implications for reactor design, with references to ongoing research in material science.
  • There is a mention of Wigner energy and its relevance to different reactor types, with clarifications on its impact on pebble-bed reactors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of optimism and skepticism regarding the ITER project, with no clear consensus on its potential success or the implications for other energy sources. Disagreements persist about the prioritization of fusion versus fission energy development and the associated risks and benefits.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various technical challenges related to neutron activation and material science, indicating that these issues remain unresolved and are part of the objectives of the ITER experiment. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about the feasibility and timeline of fusion energy development.

Mk
Messages
2,040
Reaction score
4
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn10633&feedId=online-news_rss20
Well, it looks like everybody decided to do it! I didn't think that would happen.
A seven-member international consortium signed a formal agreement on Tuesday to build a multibillion-dollar experimental nuclear fusion reactor that will emulate the nuclear processes of the Sun.
[...]
Representatives from China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States signed the pact, sealing a decade of negotiations.

The $12.8 billion (€10 billion) reactor will be built in Cadarache, southern France, over the course of a decade, starting in 2008. Originally called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, the facility is now known officially by its initials ITER (meaning "the way" in Latin).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Mk said:
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn10633&feedId=online-news_rss20
Well, it looks like everybody decided to do it! I didn't think that would happen.
That's good news!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ITER is going to work?
That's what the $12.8 billion (€10 billion) is supposed to determine. There are many skeptics.
 
I meant that they actually decided to do it! This isn't going to be like the SSC is it?
 
Perhaps not. I'm sure the device will be constructed, rather than just dig a $2 billion hold in the ground.

Whether or not it will produce a sustainable fusion reaction, or one that will produce inexpensive electricity is another matter. I hope it works, but to be feasible long term, it needs to move away from DT and use DD or DHe3[/sub], but the He3[/sub] costs a lot and there is little indigenous supply. Getting it from the moon just isn't feasible.

I think they need to develop a HICP process.
 
Well, we got a high of a .7Q rating in our current fusion research, and so I have no problem expecting at least 2Q in ITER. Like Astronuc said

That's what the $12.8 billion (€10 billion) is supposed to determine. There are many skeptics.

The money probably has gone into many reports about whether ITER will be a big success or not.

By the way, those who don't want ITER such as Greenpeace (or so I think) need to be introduced back to their old Physics books they had in High School, since they are stupid enough to think that fusion produces radioactive wastes.
 
Greenpeace's argument is actually that this will take funding away from other renewable energy that they support, research on wind and solar power.
 
theCandyman said:
Greenpeace's argument is actually that this will take funding away from other renewable energy that they support, research on wind and solar power.

Because everyone knows you should put your eggs in one basket, of course. As if 12 billion divided 7 ways over years mattered that much to the States.
 
  • #10
MadScientist 1000 said:
By the way, those who don't want ITER such as Greenpeace (or so I think) need to be introduced back to their old Physics books they had in High School, since they are stupid enough to think that fusion produces radioactive wastes.

I certainly do not support the Greenpeace radicals and their ignorant, destructive ideology. That aside - DT fusion has a much worse radiation problem than plain fission. It's not the endproducts of the DT reaction itself (plain, stable Helium); it's what all the reactor vessel and shielding becomes when exposed to very high-energy neutrons (neutron-induced radioactivity). Plus, there's that whole issue of metals becoming unpredictably brittle (wikipedia) on prolonged exposure to neutrons. And there are other surprises in the material science of high neutron flux, such as the buildup of Wigner energy (wiki) which resulted in the Windscale fire in '57.

These engineering issues will eventually be overcome (I expect); but we certainly don't have the answers yet, that's one of the objectives of the ITER experiment. And to say that desiging a reactor to withstand the high-energy neutrons of nuclear fusion is trivial, or cheap, or doesn't produce a bargeload of nuclear waste, is a gross misrepresentation of the endeavor.
 
  • #11
And speaking of "putting all eggs in one basket", we seem to have dropped an egg somewhere back in the 70's. It's the ordinary chicken egg of nuclear fission - plain, old, unexciting, but edible and http://www.iowaegg.org/iowaeggcouncil.asp?idSection=5 and using all proven technologies and existing expertise. We don't have to sit around idly while basic research drags on in fusion and cheap solar-electric materials - we could start building economical, carbon-neutral fission plants as early as tomorrow morning. (And that's only a slight rhetorical excess) And we have cheap, cheap fuel, and existing companies with experience in reactor vessels, and a whole shopping list of advanced techniques to drive down costs further (liquid sodium cooling). And we have a world-changing cataclysm of a greenhouse effect as incentive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
that whole issue of metals becoming unpredictably brittle (wikipedia) on prolonged exposure to neutrons. And there are other surprises in the material science of high neutron flux, such as the buildup of Wigner energy (wiki)
Well, there is already a lot of knowledge already of embrittlement and swelling of metals (particularly special steels and alloys) when exposed to high neutron fluences. Oak Ridge and Pacific Northwest Labs have had ongoing programs in this area. Nevertheless, the 14.1 MeV neutron from DT fusion does mean that materials will become activated over time. DD is better, but one still gets some DT, since T is a product in about 50% of DD fusions.

The Wigner energy is an issue with graphite, not metals.
 
  • #13
So in pebble-bed reactors Wigner energy could present problems?
 
  • #14
Mk said:
So in pebble-bed reactors Wigner energy could present problems?
No, because PB's run at high temperature, ~600-800°C, which is well above the 250°C annealing temperature of graphite, so Wigner energy is not an overwhelming safety issue. Nevertheless, it will be reviewed.
 

Similar threads

News Why Did France Win the Bid for a Nuclear Fusion Reactor?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K