ITER

[Darth Reven]

The U.S.,Japan,South Korea,The European Union, and China have plans to build a Fusion Reactor that would beable to produce 500 Meagawatts (w00t) of power and just 50 mgw to run it. All the specs have been drawn up the only problem is where to build it. The US and South Korea say Japan, China and Russia say France.

[NInjaPirate]

They should just find a spot in the frozen tundra of Alaska. Use a spot they already stripped for oil.

[Kor Qel Droma]

I'd much rather see godzilla than a giant Jerry Lewis

[Kaftan Barlast]

Given that Fusion is theoreticly completely clean(just hydrogen and helium) you could place it anywhere. China is the best alternative since they really need the power to keep up with the development of their society.

[KOTORFanactic]

France!

FRANCE!!

F ING FRANCE!!! <_<

They have all the power they need.

They should be build it somewhere that desperately needs it, like China.

[Darth Reven]

I don't think it's a problem of who needs the power, but of who dosen't want who to have it. Like Russia dosen't want the US to have it, and the US dosen't want Russia to have it. Plus Cina is communist so the US probably won't give in to building it there

[Oerwinde]

I say build it in the desert in China. that way if something goes wrong, nothing really gets hurt. Its not cold fusion so theres still that chance of a meltdown. If I remember right that is.

 

Anyway, I also say China because they're heavily reliant on Coal, and reducing their coal reliance means craploads less pollutants in the air.

 

Edit: Ok, no possibility of meltdown, just tritium or coolant leaks.

 

Edit #2: Crazy... the US and Canada pulled out of the project at the end of 2003... wonder why...

[Kaftan Barlast]

But the tritium(heavy water) or normal coolant wouldnt be radioactive or even toxic with fusion so I still say it could be built in the middle of a city with little harm. Sure, it could go up in flames and rather spectacular flames but it would be no explosion or nastiness.

[Oerwinde]

But the tritium(heavy water) or normal coolant wouldnt be radioactive or even toxic with fusion so I still say it could be built in the middle of a city with little harm. Sure, it could go up in flames and rather spectacular flames but it would be no explosion or nastiness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tritium is actually the fuel source, not the coolant, its a hydrogen isotope. And it is radioactive. (looked up the whole thing last night) It just has a half life of something like 12 years instead of thousands, its only harmful to humans in large quantities, and the reactors don't produce plutonium.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Yes, you're right. Heavy water=deuterium. But in any case tritium is only harmful if you eat it since the radiation is so weak it cant penetrate the skin. The whole point of fusion power is to have a clean energy source, isnt it?

[Darth Reven]

Yes, you're right. Heavy water=deuterium. But in any case tritium is only harmful if you eat it since the radiation is so weak it cant penetrate the skin. The whole point of fusion power is to have a clean energy source, isnt it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yep. and the raditon given off is just beta radtion, like you said weak.

[Ludozee]

Given that Fusion is theoreticly completely clean(just hydrogen and helium) you could place it anywhere. China is the best alternative since they really need the power to keep up with the development of their society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Definately not China. The rate China develeoping at this moment makes it the potental superpower of tomorrow and could be a great threat to the western society, both economically and military, in the near future. Russia is not wise either, 1) because of the instability and 2) because it is so close to China. The US, well, making the US stronger than it already is doesn't seem like a smart thing to me.

I vote for the EU, because it lies exactly in the middle of the other options, and they are (at the moment) quite neutral.

[deganawida]

If it were to be built in the US, five would get you twenty that it would be put on a Rez, after the people who called the Rez home were moved out to some desert scrap of land that no one would want.

[213374U]

Definately not China. The rate China develeoping at this moment makes it the potental superpower of tomorrow and could be a great threat to the western society, both economically and military, in the near future. Russia is not wise either, 1) because of the instability and 2) because it is so close to China. The US, well, making the US stronger than it already is doesn't seem like a smart thing to me.

I vote for the EU, because it lies exactly in the middle of the other options, and they are (at the moment) quite neutral.

/Agree

[kirottu]

I just hope that it gets build and whole project doesn

[Kaftan Barlast]

Definately not China. The rate China develeoping at this moment makes it the potental superpower of tomorrow and could be a great threat to the western society, both economically and military, in the near future.

 

 

 

I think thats quite ridiculous, the days of cold war superpower vs. superpower are over and gone. It IS an economic threat though due to the massive outsourcing by western companies resulting in mass unemployment. By assisting in the development of China the living standards can go up and wages rise, effectively killing outsourcing, everyone wins. ..however, since capitalism is based on the uneven distribution of wealth/resources, a billion competitors to the western lifestyle would be bad. Or good, meaning it could be the fall of capitalism.

 

 

hmm, I think I derailed myself a bit here

[Darth Reven]

Or good, meaning it could be the fall of capitalism.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

are you communist?

[213374U]

I think thats quite ridiculous, the days of cold war superpower vs. superpower are over and gone. It IS an economic threat though due to the massive outsourcing by western companies resulting in mass unemployment. By assisting in the development of China the living standards can go up and wages rise, effectively killing outsourcing, everyone wins.  ..however, since capitalism is based on the uneven distribution of wealth/resources, a billion competitors to the western lifestyle would be bad. Or good, meaning it could be the fall of capitalism.

It's not the political or economical threat that has me worried. It's the cultural one. For starters, learning chinese is a pain in the ass, my friend.

 

 

Or good, meaning it could be the fall of capitalism.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

are you communist?

Naw, he's just fond of the absurd! (w00t)

[Kaftan Barlast]

are you communist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No, I just dont like capitalism. I belive the primary function of companies should be to further humanity/supply society with the best possible products, not to generate maximum profit at all costs.

 

 

 

..and communism is a joke, sometimes a really funny one :D

[taks]

however, since capitalism is based on the uneven distribution of wealth/resources, a billion competitors to the western lifestyle would be bad. Or good, meaning it could be the fall of capitalism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that statement is untrue. capitalism is based on free market trade(capitalism is actually more of a description of what happens in a free market). how the wealth and resources distribute themselves is not the basis.

 

a capitalist china is a good thing, particularly since its current non-capitalist practices actually hurt our economy. as do europe's socialist practices... that's what causes trade deficits (foreigners can't afford to buy our goods...)

 

taks

[Percival]

Definately not China. The rate China develeoping at this moment makes it the potental superpower of tomorrow and could be a great threat to the western society, both economically and military, in the near future.

 

 

 

I think thats quite ridiculous, the days of cold war superpower vs. superpower are over and gone. It IS an economic threat though due to the massive outsourcing by western companies resulting in mass unemployment. By assisting in the development of China the living standards can go up and wages rise, effectively killing outsourcing, everyone wins. ..however, since capitalism is based on the uneven distribution of wealth/resources, a billion competitors to the western lifestyle would be bad. Or good, meaning it could be the fall of capitalism.

 

 

hmm, I think I derailed myself a bit here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If China ever started to function at their 100% the entire west would collapse. And while China would indeed get up to speed with the western wages, there would be nothing left of the west by the time things would balance out to the standards we currently enjoy.

 

eg. The western textile industry is already in shambles because manufacturers are moving to China, and it's only a matter of time before other branches of industry start completely moving over there.

 

Yes, not particulary capitalistic to oppose their development, but one has to take care of its own, I suppose.

 

 

No, I just dont like capitalism. I belive the primary function of companies should be to further humanity/supply society with the best possible products, not to generate maximum profit at all costs.

 

It's all fun and games, but when people around you (and in the worst case scenario - you) start losing jobs, we'll see how much you consider the Star Trekian attitude towards busines.

[Kaftan Barlast]

that statement is untrue. capitalism is based on free market trade(capitalism is actually more of a description of what happens in a free market). how the wealth and resources distribute themselves is not the basis.

 

a capitalist china is a good thing, particularly since its current non-capitalist practices actually hurt our economy. as do europe's socialist practices... that's what causes trade deficits (foreigners can't afford to buy our goods...)

 

 

Yes capitalism(as with communism ironicly) is a wonderful idea on paper but it has horrible consequences when applied to reality. The market can never be free because the big fish will always eat the smaller fish and then rule the market with an iron hand using everything but fair competition.

 

Capitalist China would be exactly the same as any other capitalist state, a place where 1% of the population owns or consumes 90% of the available resources.

But the problem is that the capitalist economy relies on less-developed states where production is cheap enough to offer products to its own countries at affordable prices. It also relies on less-developed counties to sell out their natural resourcs at an affordable price.

If enough countries reach the wests state of technologicl and economic development, there will be no more cheap production, no more cheap oil, no more cheap food. Prices will skyrocket and the economic system will tumble.

 

 

when people around you (and in the worst case scenario - you) start losing jobs, we'll see how much you consider the Star Trekian attitude towards busines.

 

 

Well, that was 5 years ago when Ericsson sold the factory to Emerson who in turn outsourced it to southeast asia and rendered 70% of my hometowns population unemployed. Hello Capitalism.

 

Now if Ericsson had made cellphones with Nokias quality(instead of trying to peddle crap using expensive advertising), they wouldnt have had to sell to an unscrupulous foreign company that didnt think twice to use the axe to increase profit, and my hometown would still have been a good place to live in.

[taks]

Yes capitalism(as with communism ironicly) is a wonderful idea on paper but it has horrible consequences when applied to reality. The market can never be free because the big fish will always eat the smaller fish and then rule the market with an iron hand using everything but fair competition.

that statement is utter rubbish. capitalism is not "an idea on paper" at all. at least, not like communism. communism is an ideal that was specifically invented whereas capitalism was an observation of free market trade.

 

big fish eating little fish is not a bad thing, either, and i dare you to provide proof it is. furthermore, once all the little fish are eaten up in a capitalist economy, opportunity for new players (called competition) arise decreasing the big fishes market. again, i dare you to find proof of any monopoly that was not created by the government.

 

Capitalist China would be exactly the same as any other capitalist state, a place where 1% of the population owns or consumes 90% of the available resources.

the odds are even lower in a communist society. plus, communism lies about its intention... at least a purely socialist economy admits the fact that a tyrannical government is required forever.

 

But the problem is that the capitalist economy relies on less-developed states where production is cheap enough to offer products to its own countries at affordable prices. It also relies on less-developed counties to sell out their natural resourcs at an affordable price.

not true at all. if we were all capitalist in nature, this wouldn't happen, ever. but, for whatever reason, silly eastern european, latin american and asian countries seem to think the strong arm of communism/socialism is the ticket... all of this in spite of the fact that every socialist based economy has either failed or is failing.

 

If enough countries reach the wests state of technologicl and economic development, there will be no more cheap production, no more cheap oil, no more cheap food. Prices will skyrocket and the economic system will tumble.

actually, no... prices will plummet. exactly what mechanism is it that you think will force a rise? efficiency increases with increased competition, as a direct result, prices drop. that's the beauty and guess what it has been proven to work in reality time and time again.

 

it is not a coincidence that the lowest poverty rates (actual, not perceived) and highest standards of living have always been associated with a capitalist economy.

 

Well, that was 5 years ago when Ericsson sold the factory to Emerson who in turn outsourced it to southeast asia and rendered 70% of my hometowns population unemployed. Hello Capitalism.

ahhh yes, now we see the root of the problem. it's actually a greed based motive. you're just pissed because your town's labor rates were higher than market value and the result was a company that couldn't compete.

 

Now if Ericsson had made cellphones with Nokias quality(instead of trying to peddle crap using expensive advertising), they wouldnt have had to sell to an unscrupulous foreign company that didnt think twice to use the axe to increase profit, and my hometown would still have been a good place to live in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

maybe if the people in your town would actually accept a reasonable wage for the work they were doing the same could have been said.

 

government cannot place a value on labor as it has no intrinsic value. it is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. once you get past the labor based notion, things work a little better.

 

taks

[Aponez]

The U.S.,Japan,South Korea,The European Union, and China have plans to build a Fusion Reactor that would beable to produce 500 Meagawatts (w00t)  of power  and just 50 mgw to run it. All the specs have been drawn up the only problem is where to build it. The US and South Korea say Japan, China and Russia say France.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ehem, China, Rusia and EU said France, US and Canada quited, then they haven't any right to say nothing about the zone where the ITER will be done

[Kaftan Barlast]

I would like to appologize for taking so long to answer, but I felt I needed to take the time to answer properly and Ive been busy as Im about to move again. Anyway even though Ive taken the time I dont considers these answer complete by far, I would have to write 10 or 15 pages to explain it properly. But anwyay

 

 

 

that statement is utter rubbish. capitalism is not "an idea on paper" at all. at least, not like communism. communism is an ideal that was specifically invented whereas capitalism was an observation of free market trade.

 

 

But the notion of what I call "idealistic capitalism", the belief that capitalism is a system based on the principle of individual rights and proggression through competition, is in my opinion, an afterconstruction and does not exist in reality. The real world capitalism is "profit comes before all, and at all costs except that of a lowered profit"

 

 

big fish eating little fish is not a bad thing, either, and i dare you to provide proof it is. furthermore, once all the little fish are eaten up in a capitalist economy, opportunity for new players (called competition) arise decreasing the big fishes market. again, i dare you to find proof of any monopoly that was not created by the government.

 

 

What hapens when a bussiness(small fish) becomes a corporation(a big fish) is that they no longer have to resign to being controlled by the common market becasue they have the power to control it. An example in our world of computer games is EA who has grown so large that it has bought exlusive rights to most major sports circuits, thereby establishing what in every way it a monopoly. They no longer have to concern themselves with the quality of their products because people have nowhere else to go. -by legal and fair means, they have bested competition not by supplying better products. This is real world capitalism.

 

 

 

the odds are even lower in a communist society. plus, communism lies about its intention... at least a purely socialist economy admits the fact that a tyrannical government is required forever.

 

 

I would like to clarify that Im not defending communism in any way, except as perhaps a clevery concieved utopia if you mean marxist communism(that is just a theoretical way to achieve anarcho-syndicalism).

 

 

 

not true at all. if we were all capitalist in nature, this wouldn't happen, ever. but, for whatever reason, silly eastern european, latin american and asian countries seem to think the strong arm of communism/socialism is the ticket... all of this in spite of the fact that every socialist based economy has either failed or is failing.

 

 

I would say that it is very true, it is in fact what the capitalist buzzwords "global economy" and "free trade" is all about- the ability to freely utilize the benefits of buying products form or producing, in economicly underdeveloped countries where a dollar can buy infinity much more than in a western economy.

 

And these countries are not poor and underdeveloped because some of them had communist goverments, but because they have never been given the chance to develop, because their resources are being sold out to rich countries at bottom prices. Countries with goverments that refused this draining were dealt with either with direct action like Guatemala, Chile, Iran or by crushing economic sanctions like with Cuba.

 

 

 

actually, no... prices will plummet. exactly what mechanism is it that you think will force a rise? efficiency increases with increased competition, as a direct result, prices drop. that's the beauty and guess what it has been proven to work in reality time and time again.

 

it is not a coincidence that the lowest poverty rates (actual, not perceived) and highest standards of living have always been associated with a capitalist economy.

 

 

At first people will see no other choice but to pay increased prices, since they must have these products, for as long as possible until the point that they simply cant afford it. Then there will be an economic collapse, after which the prices will drop again but probably not until after significant damage has been done to society.

 

I would say that the richest nations, the capitalist nations, are rich because we control the distribution of resources, and we have taken from the less-developed countries in order to further ourselves and not because capitalism is such a great system. Its great for us at the top, shure, but detrimental for the major part of earhs population.

 

 

ahhh yes, now we see the root of the problem. it's actually a greed based motive. you're just pissed because your town's labor rates were higher than market value and the result was a company that couldn't compete.

 

 

In sweden, as in all western countries, you would never be able to live on the kind of salary that is paid to workers in southeast Asia. Could you live working 10 or 12 hours per day on 2dollars? There is just no way we can compete in that department. If following bussiness logic, every company that can, should move their production to where the labour is cheapest in order to maximise profit. This is logic but not ethical or humane and enforced ethics is what is needed to regulate this kind of tactic that is a great threat to western society.

 

 

 

maybe if the people in your town would actually accept a reasonable wage for the work they were doing the same could have been said.

government cannot place a value on labor as it has no intrinsic value. it is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. once you get past the labor based notion, things work a little better.

 

 

Well, again. People here cant exist on southeast asian wages, that renders us unable to compete with their labour market. But the main fault in this example was not that the wages were too high, it was that the company tried and failed to maximize profit by marketing an inferior product that was cheap to make. All according to the capitalist model of "produce at lowest possible cost and sell at highest possible cost in order to maximize profit". That model failed, capitalism failed becasue people werent fooled by the advertising and did not buy the inferior product. Then they tried to help it by outsourcing, that helped the company but ruined the society- victory for capitalism at the cost of society. Is that the kind of world we want to live in?

 

 

And resources, they are limited. Its like with that "how many earths do we need if everyone would have your standard of living?" thing. If everyone in China started consuming in the rate that we do in the west, there woudlnt be enough to go around.