ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, hopes to demonstrate how fusion, the same process that occurs within the sun, can be accomplished here on earth to provide an endless clean and safe energy source. The project has been a long time coming and is a true multinational effort involving China, Russia, the EU, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States … except that the US is not paying for its share.l
To be sure, the ITER project won’t lower gas prices this year or next or five years from now. It is a long term investment for a long term problem. Work has been going on for years, first operation isn’t expected until 2016, and the first commercial plant isn’t hoped for until 2040. But whereas drilling off-shore of Florida, or opening up ANWAR have little potential to really make that much of a difference, this does.
Both candidates claim to have a vision for a future that contains clean safe and plentiful energy. But as members of the Senate what have they done to prevent the current funding fiasco? As the linked article states
I hate to blame everything on Bush… but in this case Bush refused to negotiate budget bills with the Democratic Congress last year, so most programs were put on a one year autopilot, meaning they wouldn’t get any funding increases in 2008. It isn’t a deliberate policy not to fund fusion research, it is one of hundreds of programs that have suffered because Bush is a lousy President that can’t negotiate with political opponents on fundamental issues like the Federal budget.
In any case, I recently visited a company that is involved in the project. Very cool stuff. I wish I understood it all better.
It would be a bit much to ask either Obama or McCain to accomplish much of anything in the Senate at this point, or even show up for votes; running for president is a full-time job.
What exactly are you hoping to debate here? The appropriateness of spending on ITER?
I strongly support high levels of investment in science research, but I do admit to questioning the value of ITER. If a commercial plant based upon ITER fusion technology is aimed for 2040; doesn’t it seem likely that another advance in basic research could supercede the value of ITER?
If I were a senator, I would be more willing to spend federal dollars on a particle accelerator where particle energy increases will almost certainly advance basic science which could underlie future advances in energy production than a large scale fusion reactor demonstration project which will hopefully lead to an incremental advance in fusion engineering which could underlie future advances in energy production.
I don’t know enough about the ITER project to espouse an informed opinion, but what is the fundamental arguement justifying its price tag? Does this value exceed the other science the federal goverment funds?
I may be mistaken, but I had gotten the impression that ITER wasn’t simply another experimental tokamak; that confidence was high that it would actually demonstrate technical breakeven (energy produced = energy used) and could then be tweaked to effective breakeven (can run indefinitely on it’s own output). In other words, that it could be a demonstration of concept for an actual commercial fusion reactor. This would be a little more relevant than an “incremental advance in fusion engineering”.
Based upon my recent perusals of the front half of Nature, I agree with your assessment of the goals of ITER. That said, I still don’t see ITER as a significant step forward in the commercialization of fusion technology.
Although from a scientific perspective it’s a big step forward when the net energy gain is positive, from a commercial perspective, that is not the case. Scientisits are relatively confident that the plan will work, correct? But it still won’t generate nearly enough power given the cost of its construction to approach commercial viability.
To me, it’s like engineering a 747 in 1938 with propellors. Sure, maturing the airframe technology is nice when mated to currently existig technologies, but we don’t know what that fundamental advance that will make air-travel economically feasable for the masses is yet, so why waste so much money “optimizing” a technology that isn’t advanced enough to yet be commerically applied? Wouldn’t the same money be better spent on more basic physics research?
If my assumptions about the value of ITER are wrong, by all means, correct me, but based on my current understanding, I don’t especially see it.
As to whose fault it is, I am not so sure that Bush-bashing (albeit a fun hobby and often indicated) is called for here. According to my first link-
Anyway, the debate about ITER has long ago been had, its potential and future viability were long ago accepted, and America committed to being part of the consortium. The issue I am raising is that after having made that commitment America is reneging on shouldering its share. Perhaps Japan, India, Russia, China, the EU, and South Korea will trudge on without us but it doesn’t look good. It means that America is relinquishing even being part of the cutting edge of science and a potential long term source of clean and lasting safe energy and is an unreliable partner to deal with. And just in case you are concerned that perhaps America was unfairly serving as the projects deep pockets, we aren’t shouldering all that much.
I’d like to know if the candidates have positions on how America honors its commitments, on how they plan for America to back up its plans to lead in research aimed at a carbon reduced clean energy future, and if the fact that physics in general is leaving the United States is a problem or not.