Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (155258)	11/26/2002 5:25:15 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583406

Bush team eyes star power for energy needs Scientists asked to chart path for commercial fusion by 2037 By Miguel Llanos MSNBC Nov. 25 — What if you could build your own star and use its energy to power entire cities — all with much less environmental risk than traditional nuclear power? It might sound crazy, but scientists met Monday at the Bush administration’s request to advise whether it’s feasible within the next 35 years to create, contain and then commercialize what’s known as fusion energy. Vote to see results Should the United States commit more to fusion energy, even if it costs taxpayers billions of dollars? * 12090 responses Yes 87% No 8% Can't decide 5% Survey results tallied every 60 seconds. Live Votes reflect respondents' views and are not scientifically valid surveys. THE ENERGY SOURCE of the stars, fusion has actually been studied for 50 years as a potential source of energy that emits no air pollutants or gases tied to global warming. It does produce some short-lived radioactivity, but nothing like traditional nuclear power. Unlike fission — which powers today’s nuclear power plants by splitting atoms, creating significant radioactive waste — fusion fuses hydrogen atoms and creates energy as a byproduct. On top of that, its basic fuels — deuterium (a heavy form of hydrogen) and lithium — are abundantly available. Fifty cups of sea water, for example, contain enough deuterium to produce the same amount of energy as two tons of coal. But the potential is matched by the formidable challenge involved: The fuels must be heated to 100 million degrees Celsius, at which point they become plasma. Then that temperature must be sustained and controlled so the resulting energy can be turned into electricity. ‘ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE’ Last September, the Energy Department asked the 14 members of its Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee to weigh in. In a first response ahead of Monday’s meeting in Washington, the committee chair said the assumption of a 35-year target was completely sound. Advertisement “Accomplishments of the program during the past few decades have been truly remarkable,” wrote Richard Hazeltine, director of the Institute for Fusion Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. “They have brought us to a point that makes the forward look described in your charge, including its explicit time scale, entirely appropriate.” Those advances include scientists’ ability to better handle fusion. Thirty years ago, researchers reached a milestone by producing one-tenth of one watt of fusion power for one-hundredth of a second. Today they’re able to produce 10 million watts for about a second. A scientist is seen inside a fusion reactor used by the Energy Department and Princeton to heat hydrogen atoms so that they become plasma and then energy. The reactor was disassembled last September after 15 years of research use. CHENEY TASK FORCE When the Energy Department asked experts to weigh in, it was acting on a directive from the national energy task force, chaired last year by Vice President Dick Cheney. In the task force’s report, fusion energy was described in glowing terms as not suffering from fission’s downside. “There are no emissions from fusion, and the radioactive wastes from fusion are short lived, only requiring burial and oversight for about 100 years,” the report stated. “In addition, there is no risk of a melt-down accident because only a small amount of fuel is present in the system at any time. Finally, there is little risk of nuclear proliferation because special nuclear materials, such as uranium and plutonium, are not required for fusion energy.” The report envisioned fusion power plants that not only deliver electricity to the power grid but also “power an energy supply chain based on hydrogen and fuel cells” — technology that could replace the internal combustion engines in vehicles with zero or near-zero pollution. The advisory committee was asked to report back to the administration by Dec. 1 with its general advice and note any significant issues. A second report in March will lay out funding priorities. Fusion researchers have long lobbied for an international experimental reactor, but the estimated $10 billion cost has unnerved many governments, including the United States, which backed out in 1998. The administration asked the committee to take another look at a scaled-back international effort as well as other funding possibilities. Background about the committee and the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences is online at www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov. msnbc.com