TGM #145: Fusion energy (July 10, 2009)
Posted by Arleigh. [2] CommentsYou can download the episode here or listen in the embedded player.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
- Dr. Rob Goldston, former director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, speaks with Science reporter Dylan Jervis speaks about fusion energy and the new International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor (ITER) project that has recently received funding. Though fusion power has not yet been demonstrated on an industrial scale, some believe it may ultimately produce clean energy without the environmental and security concerns that plague nuclear fission.
- Social Justice correspondent Joanna Dafoe speaks with Bill McKibben, an influential American writer on global warming, alternative energy, and the risks associated with genetic engineering. In 2006, McKibben led a walk across Vermont to demand action on global warming; in 2007, he founded Step It Up to mobilize a day of action with global warming demonstrations across the United States. McKibben co-founded and directs the international climate organization 350.org and published The End of Nature in 1989, regarded as the first book for a general audience about climate change. He is a frequent contributor to major newspapers and magazines.
Fusion energy and ITER
Bill McKibben
Headlines:
- Number of federal projects to be exempted from environmental assessments has jumped to 14,000
- New organic food labelling regulations now in effect
- Ontario’s nuclear plans delayed
- Fundamental safety flaw identified in Canadian-designed Candu reactors
- The G8 have agreed to try to limit the world’s temperature increase to two degrees Celsius
- The food security of the world’s poorest nations is in peril—‘land-grabbing’ is to blame
- Holes in the ozone layer reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that can be absorbed by oceans
- More headlines…
Tokamaks (ITER) are never going to produce a viable fusion reactor. It will be too big and cost too much. Even if it works.
Plasma Physicist Dr. Nicholas Krall said, “We spent $15 billion dollars studying tokamaks and what we learned about them is that they are no damn good.”
Polywell Fusion has a much better chance of producing an economic fusion reactor. It will cost about $5 million more and take two years to finish the research. Compare that to ITER.
BTW what will you do if the Global Warming Scare is found to be a fraud (very likely).
I wish to point out that every book, article or study that I have ever seen in the last few years that questions the reality of climate change has been shown by independent review to either be based on questionable methods, bad science, and/or backed and/funded by industries and other groups that have an interest in preventing change towards sustainability. One notable such effort was the oil industry funded “scientists” from a few years ago and other massive media disinformation campaigns.
You can choose to believe whomever you wish, but there is mountains of evidence at this point for climate change and its human causes or at least acceleration. While no-one can ever be certain, the vast majority of quality research ( <90% )shown that climate change is a real threat.
Also, even if it turns out not to be true, what about sustainable energy and sustainable reduced pollution society would be bad? Similar with the issue of smoking, it is far cheaper to spend money reducing impacts now and changing industry and culture, than to do nothing and deal with the trillions of dollars or costs down the road in trying to carve a path for human existance, much less a viable economy if the worst case estimates are true. It is worth noting that the IPCC which uses a consensus method to produce its results ie. lowest common denomonator opinion previals presented low, medium and high impact predictions and in many cases the highest ie. worst case predictions have already been broken many years before they were predicted to reach lower levels or threasholds ie. artic sea ice break-up.
Even if climate change isn’t real, is not poisons and toxins from unsustainable fuels and industrial processes poisoning millions a good enough reason to try to find a better way doing business? Or is getting a blackberry phone for $50 more important that paying a little more and not dieing of lung cancer and heat stroke at the age of 35…