Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on November 20, 2015
ITER fusion project to take at least 6 years longer than planned
The multibillion-dollar ITER fusion project will take another 6 years to build beyond the—now widely discredited—official schedule, a meeting of the governing council was told this week. ITER management has also asked the seven international partners backing the project for additional funding to finish the job.
It remains unclear whether the project will get what it wants: Delegations from the partners—China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States—concluded the council meeting today by announcing the council would conduct its own review of the schedule and funding to look for ways to tighten them up. In the meantime, the council approved the proposed schedule for 2016 and 2017, set out milestones for the project to reach in that time, and agreed to make available extra resources to help achieve it. After consulting their governments, the delegations committed themselves to agreeing on a final schedule at the next council meeting, in June 2016.
“It was a very important meeting for us and it went well,” says ITER Director-General Bernard Bigot. “Every member expressed their concerns and in the end they reached an agreement.” Jianlin Cao, vice minister at the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, stressed the challenges the meeting faced. The council delegates “have been so careful about this work. But ITER is a new thing, and success does not come easily,” Cao told Science.
The ITER project aims to show that nuclear fusion—the power source of the sun and stars—is technically feasible as a source of energy. Despite more than 60 years of work, researchers have failed to achieve a fusion reaction that produces more energy than it consumes. ITER, with a doughnut-shaped “tokamak” reaction chamber able to contain 840 cubic meters of superheated hydrogen gas, or plasma, is the biggest attempt so far and is predicted to produce at least 500 megawatts of power from a 50 megawatt input. The project was officially begun in 2006 with an estimated cost of €5 billion and date for the beginning of operations—or first plasma—in 2016. Those figures quickly changed to €15 billion and 2019, but confidence in those numbers has eroded over the years.
When Bigot took over as Director-General earlier this year, he ordered a bottom-up review of the whole project, which currently has numerous buildings springing up at the Cadarache site in southern France and components arriving from contractors in the partner states around the globe. That review produced a new description of the entire project, known as the “baseline,” including a revamped schedule and cost estimate. The baseline was presented to the council for approval this week. Although the official communique does not mention the proposed date for first plasma, it is widely acknowledged to be 2025.
“The council acknowledged this resource-loaded schedule but they need more time to fully endorse this or another schedule and to reconcile it with the resources they have,” Bigot says. Delegates confirmed such plans. “We must take the schedule home and discuss it with the finance ministry,” says Anatoly Krasilnikov, head of Russia’s ITER domestic agency, the body responsible for awarding industrial contracts.
“In the meantime, they have agreed to give us extra resources to meet the milestones in 2016–17. It keeps the momentum,” Bigot says. To make that possible, the council will move around some money already allocated for 2016 and possibly provide new money for 2017. The project will hire 150 new staff to top up the 640 currently employed by the ITER organization. In return, the council wants ITER to meet 17 major milestones from the new schedule in 2016 and another eight in 2017. “If we meet the milestones, it will consolidate the trust,” Bigot says.
The true cost of ITER is almost impossible to define. When the project agreement was drawn up in 2006, all the necessary components were divided up among the partners according to their contributions: 45% for the European Union (as host), and 9% for each of the others. How much each partner pays to have those components manufactured is the partner’s individual concern and is not revealed. In addition to the components, which are shipped to Cadarache as in-kind contributions, each partner must make a cash contribution to the central ITER organization to cover its costs.
The ITER organization’s role is to draw up the design, ensure everyone sticks to it, and then to supervise assembly of the reactor while also satisfying the local French regulators, especially the nuclear safety authority ASN. That has not been an easy job, as the organization does not deal directly with the industrial companies doing the manufacturing; that is handled by each partner’s domestic agency. Last year, a highly critical management assessment faulted the organization for failing to establish a workable “project culture.” Bigot has gone to great lengths to get contractors, domestic agencies, and ITER staff working better together. “I want that the ITER organization and the domestic agencies are never the limiting step for contractors to deliver,” he says. Previously, work on the tokamak building had been held up because ITER staff hadn’t agreed on a final version of its design.
The problem that the next council meeting will have to resolve is that some member states are further ahead than others in their assigned tasks for the assembly of ITER. Those that are ahead, and are closer to meeting the old schedule, don’t see why they have to fund a slower—and hence more expensive—schedule imposed on them by other partners.
11 Comments on "ITER fusion project to take at least 6 years longer than planned"
HARM on Fri, 20th Nov 2015 3:44 pm
I’m shocked, SHOCKED to find that kick-the-can is going on with another fusion pipe dream project!
bug on Fri, 20th Nov 2015 4:00 pm
“The true cost of the ITER is almost impossible to define”, hahaha
The human race are suckers. My/your tax dollars going to this. Everyone here knows in 2121 (6 years) some other douchebag magazine will say. “In 5 years the ITER will be really cool, just wait”.
dave thompson on Fri, 20th Nov 2015 4:05 pm
Even at six years, say this thing is built and operating, to what end? Will we then build enough of these monstrosities to power the world for free the way the nukes were supposed to?
apneaman on Fri, 20th Nov 2015 4:47 pm
It’s all part of the plan. What plan is that? To fuck as many people out of as much money as is possible before the end. Who’s in on it? Oh, just Wall St, the government, academia and the non profit/NGO industrial complex – pretty much everyone. Get paid while you can.
HOW WALL STREET IS CASHING IN ON CLIMATE CATASTROPHE
Wrong Kind of Green Nov 16, 2015 Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Union of Concerned Scientists, United Nations
COME HELL OR HIGH WATER, THE FINANCE INDUSTRY WILL MAKE A KILLING
“Bigger and more expensive storms are brewing. One study found that as much as $507 billion worth of U.S. coastal property could be underwater by 2100. With $416 billion in assets at risk, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development labels Miami as the city that could face the most property damage worldwide as a result of rising tides. Hurricane Katrina already claimed $48.7 billion in insured losses; Hurricane Sandy caused $18.75 billion worth.
Governments, meanwhile, are doing little to prepare. As we head into this year’s climate talks in Paris, prospects seem dim for a comprehensive plan to scale back emissions to the extent required to prevent catastrophic warming. In the United States, Department of Energy scientist Tom Wilbanks has called this country’s crumbling infrastructure, which is woefully ill-equipped to cope with even moderate climate impacts, “a national crisis.” On top of that, our federal disaster response mechanisms remain sluggish, still underfunded and encumbered by the bureaucratic mismanagement that characterized the responses to Katrina and Sandy.
But thanks to Wall Street’s ability to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse, one disaster management tool is starting to gain traction.
The “catastrophe bond,” devised in the aftermath of 1992’s Hurricane Andrew, is a form of “reinsurance.”
more
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2015/11/16/how-wall-street-is-cashing-in-on-climate-catastrophe/
meshpal on Fri, 20th Nov 2015 5:05 pm
I remember in the 1960’s that fusion power was going to be feasible in 50 years. This forecast has not changed in those years. But there are some new fusion designs approaches out in the last couple of years and it may just be too early to build anything this big yet without looking at the new alternatives. Building big makes the design more likely to work, but with lots of financial downside risks.
Not sure what to recommend. Fusion is just not easy. Even if they get it working, they need to do so at an economical price with a facility that will work for a long time with low maintenance costs; a lot to ask for.
But you know what the real problem is? The technical/engineer/scientist guys in the West have been so put down for so long: ridiculed, taxed to death, laughed at by the media, mocked by women, turned into nerds and totally un-incentivized – so what do you expect?
You take away our inventions and businesses and we get nothing but problems for all of our hard work and effort. I know a lot of very talented Western engineers that are doing as little as possible. The bottom line is that we are not going to work on any more of your damn problems – fix it yourself.
Our elite ruling class have killed the Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs since they are afraid of our talents. They do not feel safe about our technical know-how. So see how well your bureaucrats, finance guys and money changers can deal with the fusion power problem. The guys you need to solve these problems are enjoying themselves in Southeast Asia. Were an educated Western man is still valued.
So there is now a reasonable chance that we will no longer achieve fusion in the foreseeable future. With the financial model breaking down, resource depletion and our many other problems may result in loss of centralize control. So there you have it.
theedrich on Fri, 20th Nov 2015 6:44 pm
Is ITER another Tower of Babel project? It certainly reminds one of that old myth. And also of Tainter’s explanation about how, as a civilization encounters diminishing returns, it increasingly complexifies itself in an attempt to overcome inexorable limits. One wishes the project designers well but, based on the record of fusion research heretofore, the prospects for success do not look good. There is also the small matter of mission creep and the inevitable corruption associated with massive public works.
And even beyond such considerations and the sad realities that meshpal has pointed out, what would the result be if some kind of profitable fusion were not only actually attained but also implementable everywhere at warp speed? To judge from past experience, it would only enable yet more population explosion and even faster degradation of the biosphere. Have serious economists (who do not belong to the Demonic Party or otherwise have some ideological agenda) determined where and when a breakeven point might be reached?
Possibly the hypsters are trying to sell ITER as the last, best hope of mankind. If so, it is doubtful any venture capitalists not backed by taxpayer money would buy their song.
onlooker on Fri, 20th Nov 2015 6:48 pm
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fusion-illusion
A nice link I found about the sorry history of fusion and its empty promises. Another techno fix that even if right now we could achieve could not solve the profound problem of human overshoot.
onlooker on Fri, 20th Nov 2015 6:55 pm
I would also make the observation that any prodigious new source of energy such as fusion would only allow humans to go on ravaging and consuming Earth and so obviate the life supporting capabilities of Earth’s ecosystems.
Kenz300 on Fri, 20th Nov 2015 7:15 pm
Wind and solar are the future………
Renewables to Overtake Coal as World’s Largest Power Source, Says IEA
https://ecowatch.com/2015/11/10/renewables-to-overtake-coal/
Go Speed Racer on Fri, 20th Nov 2015 9:14 pm
I know how to make ITER produce energy. DRILL A HOLE IN THE TOP of that Toroid. Put a chimney on it. Fill up with cord wood, old tires, used motor oil and gasoline. Light it up and it will get real hot inside. The old tires will give it some extra kick, although the chimney will be a bit smokey. Then feed the surplus power onto the grid. Make a deal with Les Schwab to take their old tires, and it’s fully sustainable.
apneaman on Sat, 21st Nov 2015 11:16 am
MEGACANCER ~ Exploring the pathology of industrial civilization.
Permaculture Paradise – Not
“The only thing that maintains complex structures through time is their willingness and effectiveness at gathering energy and creating more of themselves. Whether it is a simple dissipative structure stretching from hot to cold like a hurricane or something on a much smaller scale or something that has become very complex, all are basically the same. Unfortunately for humans, we have been raised on a daily ration of sunlight, constrained by competing species, and within the blink of a geological eye our rapidly evolving neural tissue has put us back into cells to pound out the tools to eat the new found bounty of the earth. But this energy we so greedily consume is not doled-out to a balanced ecosystem, in small amounts over time, but is consumed as rapidly and in as many ways as possible.”
more
http://megacancer.com/2015/11/21/permaculture-paradise-not/