piecesetmaindoeuvre.com, communiqué, le 28 novembre 2009

(CNDP-Nanos) Débat bidon dans un bunker

A propos de la réunion de la Commission nationale du débat public Nanotechnologies à Grenoble (Alpexpo) le 1er décembre

“Le grand public est au centre de notre mission”, proclame la Commission particulière du débat public Nanotechnologies sur son site. Et Bergougnoux, son président, d’espérer dans Le Monde, le jour du lancement de sa campagne d’acceptabilité, la participation de 10 000 à 12 000 personnes aux pseudo-débats – soit une moyenne de 590 à 700 participants par ville.

Les compte-rendus des sept premières réunions, établis par la CNDP elle-même, nous informent que seules 200 à 300 personnes se déplacent en moyenne, soit moins de la moitié que prévu. Un échec pour la CNDP ? Certes non. En réalité, l’organisation de ces réunions bidon écarte minutieusement le “grand public” pour réserver le prétendu débat aux experts et contre-experts du nanomonde.

A Strasbourg, Toulouse, Orléans, Bordeaux, Lille, Clermont-Ferrand, Besançon et Grenoble, nul n’a vu d’affiches sur les murs, ni reçu de tract dans sa boîte aux lettres. A chaque étape le même refrain chez les habitants interrogés : personne n’est au courant. Ce n’est certes pas faute de budget – deux millions d’euros pour cette campagne de promotion – si la CNDP néglige la plus élémentaire information de la population.

Au contraire son agence de manipulations publiques, I&E Consultants, envoie-t-elle en masse des invitations insistantes aux universités, laboratoires, instituts de recherche. A Grenoble les chercheurs de l’Université Joseph-Fourier (scientifique) et des instituts de sciences dures du CNRS ont ainsi reçu des mails les incitant à bourrer la salle pour soutenir la tribune et riposter à d’éventuelles manifestations d’opposition. I&E invite également les associations environnementalistes ou de consommateurs à étaler leur contre-expertise pour un échange démocratique sur les taux de nano-pollution admissibles. Ainsi s’assure-t-on le respect de la consigne délivrée par Jean-Louis Borloo dans le film d’introduction aux réunions : “Notre façon de vivre va être bouleversée par ces nanotechnologies, la question c’est pas d’être pour ou contre” (sic).

Résumons : 250 personnes dans la salle. Les premiers rangs réservés aux représentants des sept ministères maîtres d’ouvrage. Des intervenants officiels disséminés dans le public. Les invités issus des labos, de la Chambre de commerce, des boîtes locales ; et des citoyens spécialistes délégués par leurs associations. Combien d’anonymes du “grand public” dans ces débats bidon ? Leur présence est si peu souhaitée que d’honorables représentants de ceci-cela ont pu s’offusquer de la distribution par des contestataires sans appartenance, de tracts “sans signature d’association“. La CNDP quant à elle le déclare tout de go : “Nous ne sommes pas intéressés par les slogans et les déclarations anonymes”. D’autant moins que la commission, tout en invitant le public à “éclairer les décisions du gouvernement”, a établi à l’avance la liste des 147 questions susceptibles d’être soulevées en réunion, ainsi que les thèmes à exclure du débat (la biologie synthétique, le transhumanisme, les sciences cognitives – bref, l’homme-machine dans le monde-machine). Cette liste a été rendue publique par Pièces et Main d’œuvre sur les sites www.piecesetmaindoeuvre.com et www.nanomonde.org.

A Besançon, le dispositif anti-public est monté d’un cran sécuritaire. Les participants, accueillis par un triple contrôle de vigiles, furent priés, une fois à l’intérieur, de signer un engagement à ne pas “perturber le débat”.

A Grenoble, c’est dans un bunker que le grand public est invité à s’exprimer en toute liberté. Police partout, vigiles privés en nombre renforcé ont été convoqués pour le show dans la capitale des nanos, à Alpexpo. La sécurité, nous dira l’honnête Bergougnoux, est l’affaire du responsable de la salle ; la CNDP ne touchant pas à ces basses œuvres. Ça tombe bien, le patron d’Alpexpo est un expert en la matière. Guy Chanal, également patron du Palais des Sports et de la course cycliste des “Six Jours de Grenoble”, est réputé pour sa poigne qui lui vaut une réputation de “cow-boy” parmi ses employés. Son expertise en maintien de l’ordre fait de lui depuis 2007 le conseiller technique auprès du préfet de l’Isère en matière de grands rassemblements, “en liaison avec le chef du service interministériel de défense et de protection civile” (prefecture.isere.fr). Nous voilà rassurés.

Tel qu’il est, avec ses multiples trucages et manipulations, ce pseudo-débat de la CNDP ne peut se dérouler autrement, puisque précisément il est destiné à simuler un exercice de démocratie impossible. Les opposants au nanomonde ayant dénoncé cette mascarade organisée trois ans après l’inauguration de Minatec à Grenoble, il ne restait à la CNDP qu’à ramasser les gestionnaires des nuisances pour servir de marionnettes dans ses numéros de ventriloques.

Il est notoire que les seuls débats publics sur les nanotechnologies depuis 2003 ont eu lieu à l’initiative obstinée des opposants et que celui de la CNDP n’existerait pas s’il ne s’agissait d’enfouir ces manifestations critiques. Du reste, serions-nous seuls contre tous à clamer notre opposition au nanomonde, que nous persisterions.

Une chose est sûre : OGM, déchets nucléaires, ITER ou nanotechnologies, l’hostilité croît vis-à-vis de la “démocratie technique”, des sociologues de l’acceptabilité et des organisateurs de la fausse concertation qui mettent en œuvre la devise de leurs collègues de France Telecom : “Faire participer, c’est faire accepter”. Pas plus que les OGM ou le nucléaire, les nanotechnologies ne se gèrent. Face au nanomonde nous ne pouvons nous satisfaire de règlements à la marge. Voilà pourquoi nous ne participerons pas au débat bidon de la CNDP à Grenoble le 1er décembre.

A couple of weeks ago, I- and 15 others in my university’s physics society- went to CCFE, the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, located near Abingdon, Oxfordshire. It’s home to the MAST (Mega Ampere Spherical Tokamak) reactor, a UK project on small-scale fusion, and JET (Joint European Torus), currently the world’s largest fusion reactor. It was in a winding-down phase, having finished its campaign of experiments for this year, allowing the engineers and robots to refit it for next year’s campaign.

One of the guides told us that this would be focusing on replicating as closely as possible a small scale version of ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, pronounced eat-er), the vast reactor being built in the south of France that should be the final experimental step before commercial fusion reactors start being built around 2050. This will allow them to have two- once ITER is operational- sets of data from identically fitted reactors, the only variable being size, thereby allowing approximate extrapolation for comparison with other variables affected by size, such as power output, density, temperature gradients, magnetic containment effectiveness, etc. More data points would, of course, be preferable, but as each reactor costs several billion Euros/Pounds/Dollars to build, this seems unlikely to happen any time soon. The next step after ITER should be DEMO, a series of even larger demonstration reactors built in the seven ITER participants- Europe, the US, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, and India. These should be the first reactors to run commercially, and will be the final stage before commercial deuterium-tritium fusion reactors start being built worldwide in around 2050.

Back to the present day; we got a minibus from Uni at about 8am for the roughly 4 hour drive. We arrived at Culham Science Park at around one o’clock, having stopped for lunch at a service station. After recieving our ID badges from the reception building, we drove around to the first stop; the building containing MAST. It’s also home to Culham Lightning, who were testing lightning strikes on aircraft nose cones at the time of our vist, so added to the huge amount of machinery and systems in there, things were pretty noisy. First we were given a short presentation on fusion, but as the majority of vistors there are A-level students (11th/12th graders US equivalent), this didn’t expand at all on the introductory lecture we’d arranged the previous week from Professor Howard Wilson, a plasma physicist at York University and a researcher at Culham. Here are some pictures from the presentation room:

MAST reactor in operation- it's a miniature sun.

Slice of one of the field shaping electromagnets. The holes are for cryogenic refrigeration.

One of the high power cables. I'm not sure the picture does its size justice.

We then moved onto taking a look at MAST itself. Several people were working on it at the time, so photo opportunities were limited:

The control system for injecting gas into MAST.

MAST neutral beam injection and analysis ports.

Neutral Beam Injection is one way of feeding deuterium into the reactor. It works by ionising deuterium and accelerating it into a chamber of gaseous deuterium. It hits the atoms and accelerates them towards the reaction chamber at a few km/s. The other method is to freeze deuterium and tritium into small (a couple of mm) pellets at about 10K (-263°C; 1K=1°C), which are shot into the centre of the chamber at several hundred m/s. Current tokamaks fire 10 pellets a second for 10 seconds, whereas ITER should be capable of 16/s for an hour, in line with its much greater energy output and operating period.

Laser interferometer for measuring plasma density inside MAST.

After this we moved onto JET, which was further into the science park, and allowed me to get a picture of the type of building the reactors are in. Very unglamorous for the technology that seems to be in line to solve the world’s energy needs within a few decades.

The unassuming MAST building exterior.

Once inside the JET building- which, unlike the MAST building, is entirely dedicated to the JET reactor- there were many more interesting things to see:

Beryllium is being used in many reactor components due to its ability to handle extreme temperatures.

Training duplicate of the JET reactor allows easy experimentation.

Remote handling access port.

Quickly-snapped picture of the remote handling access port on the training reactor model. It’s used to get the remote handling equipment inside the reactor. There are two, at opposite sides, allowing two operations to proceed simultaneously, shortening refit and repair downtime.

Remote handling manipulator.

The end of the remote handling equipment- a long, multiple-articulated computer-controlled robotic arm mounted on a crane- that does the actual manipulating. it is operated either by computer, or by remote operator who uses a similar-looking piece of equipment to convert his large hand and arm movements into the delicate and precise motions required intside the torus itself.

The real JET.

JET itself. A huge piece of machinery- the largest fusion reactor in the world- but tiny by commercial requirement standards. ITER will dwarf it, and DEMO will be even larger again. That yellow wall, by the way, isn’t a wall. It’s a 2-metre-thick concrete-and-steel sliding door, to protect the operators from the high-energy neutrons being flung out by JET. ITER and subsequent reactors will have built-in shielding, so that they are safe to operate in a commercial environment- which is what all of this is leading up to.

The control centre.

The vast amount of computers- which go off the left, right and back of the picture, and the room to the right of this is filled with servers and hard drives to store all the data about every JET experiment in its 25+ year history. As this is a joint European venture, teams of scientists from other nations will come up with some parameters- certain temperatures, fuel ratios, desities, etc- for an experiment and ask CCFE to include it in its next campaign. They search the archives to see if it has been done before. If it has, they pass along the data. If not, then they include it in either the next campaign or the one after. This room holds the on-site staff monitoring the experiment, and sometimes foreign teams who come over to watch their experiment run. It’s possible for them to stay at home if they prefer, however, and watch the experiment proceed over the internet.

Well, that’s it. Hope you enjoyed seeing the current state of fusion technology. I firmly believe that it’s going to solve most, if not all, of our energy problems. Perhaps not overnight, but sooner rather than later. And the best news of all is that it’s carbon (and other greenhouse gases)-neutral, we have enough fuel to last for centuries, probably millenia (half a bath of seawater and  one laptop battery contain enough deuterium and lithium (which, when reacted with the neutrons generated by the fusion, produces tritium) to supply a person’s energy needs for a year) and produces no radioactive waste other than some of the reactor components when it’s eventually decommissioned.

Feel free to leave comments or questions.

~Rob

ITER (originally the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is an international tokamak (magnetic confinement fusion) research/engineering project that could help to make the transition from today’s studies of plasma physics to future electricity-producing fusion power plants.

I have to confess that I’d never heard of this €10 billion megaproject in the south of France until recently when I stumbled across it in connection with another intriguing story about a new fusion device (Laser Inertial Fusion Energy, or LIFE — pretty catchy, huh?) being tested at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

It’s kind of exciting to think that such projects might hold the key to addressing much of our energy requirements at some point in the not too distant future (relatively speaking), but then, I’m a firm believer that mankind’s ingenuity will eventually arrive at technological solutions that will render carbon-based technologies obsolete for power generation.

A few days ago, President Obama gave a speech at MIT during which he reiterated the need to switch to green energy in order to preserve the environment.  He also said that the use of fossil fuels, particularly foreign oil, places the country in a precarious situation. If a foreign country cuts off our oil supply it could cause great hardship in the U.S.  He also said that a massive effort to create a green energy industry will be a significant stimulus for our economy. Speaking about the worldwide competition to create new sources of green energy he said, “The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy.”  I’m not so sure of that.

As usual, isolationist Americans tend to be unaware of advances made in the rest of the world.  Ever since we won World War II we have had a tendency to view ourselves as the world leader in anything technological. It might then come as a surprise to many Americans that the call to action for the creation of green energy has been heard a long time ago in Europe – while Americans were happy to drive their gas guzzling SUVs and Hummers and heat their homes with fossil fuels and generate electricity with coal.  While Americans were comfortably cocooned in their homes watching football on their widescreen TVs, Denmark was busy building gigantic windmills for the generation of electricity. Today, Denmark is the world leader in wind-produced electricity, a result of a National plan developed in 1976.  They make some mighty large and mighty efficient windmills in Denmark. It’s not clear to me that even MIT can overtake the Danes anytime soon in this type of technology.  Do we really think we will be producing next generation windmills anytime soon and be selling them to the world?  The world already has significant wind generation capability.

What about solar power?  Surely the world needs that. True, but the world has been working on that for quite a long time – while we were driving our SUVs around town trying to find houses we could flip.  Germany is the world leader in solar technology and has been for quite a while. The Germans are currently building a 40 megawatt solar power plant for their own power generation needs. I doubt that the Germans will be one of our customers for solar power technology. Germany is the world leader in producing solar power.

OK, so what else is there? Nuclear? Whoa, hold yer horses, fella. What do you mean “nucular”?  That’s dangerous. Don’t you know they make bombs out of that stuff?  We Americans don’t want that! (Just disregard our stockpile of thousands of nuclear bombs.) Meanwhile, the French – actually not “meanwhile”, ever since the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973  the French decided that they would never again be held hostage to foreign oil.  So they built a bunch of nuclear power plants all over France.  France is the world leader in nuclear power plant technology, not the U.S. I don’t think they’ll be lining up to place any orders from the U.S. even if we do decide to resume nuclear power research.  The leading institution in the world for the future of nuclear energy, i.e. nuclear fusion, is called ITER. It’s in France.  Under the Bush administration the U.S. had all but dropped out of this research effort. Our country stopped paying its dues and had almost zeroed out all funding. Meanwhile the other six members of ITER: China, European Union, India, Japan, Korea, and Russia have made great strides toward the production of power from controlled nuclear fusion – a process that produces very little radioactive waste. Recently the U.S. chipped in a little money that helped to make back payments that the Bush administration failed to make. Even so, we are hardly on the cutting edge of nuclear science compared to the rest of the civilized world.

The fact that President Obama wants to spend a lot of money on energy projects in America is good news. It’s about time. But let’s not kid ourselves. The rest of the world is way ahead of us.  The Obama plan will undoubtedly create more jobs in the U.S.  for people who will be engaged in energy research. It is something we need to do.  It is also something the rest of the world realized they needed a long time ago.  It is unlikely that we will find a large foreign market for our energy technology, whether it is solar, wind, nuclear, or anything else in the near future.  We have too much catching up to do. Because of that, it is unlikely that launching a massive energy research and development project can be the near term solution for our economy. We won’t be exporting windmills to the Danes, solar panels to the Germans, or coals to Newcastle. They have enough, thank you.

The fundamental problem with our economy is not that we don’t do energy reserach, it is the outsourcing of people’s jobs by multinational companies.  We simply cannot go on having our multinational companies make everything in China and then sell it to us in Wal-Mart stores while we get the money to pay for all this stuff by playing economic bubble games and getting home equity loans.  Green energy research is good. It’s good for the scientists and engineers who need jobs. It’s good for the environment. But let’s not kid ourselves, it’s not going to be the solution for the much deeper problems of our pathetic economy.  The solution will only come by tackling head on the iniquities of multinational economics and the exportation of American jobs and manufacturing capabilities to foreign countries.

O Governo Aécio Neves, por meio da Secretaria de Estado Extraordinária para Assuntos de Reforma Agrária (Seara) e o Instituto de Terras de Minas Gerais (Iter), em parceria com o Ministério de Desenvolvimento Agrário e Instituto de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (Incra), entrega nesta quarta-feira, dia 28, e quinta-feira, dia 29, títulos de propriedades rurais a pequenos produtores e agricultores familiares em Jenipapo de Minas e Araçuaí. No município de Jenipapo de Minas serão entregues 254 títulos, enquanto em Araçuaí serão 222, beneficiando mais de 2.000 pessoas.

Leia matéria completa Governo entrega títulos agrários no Vale do Jequitinhonha

il prof. Merli in una rara foto depoca

Questa volta tocca al diritto del lavoro. Lo ami quando sei dipendente, lo odi quando invece sei libero; un po’ come il calcetto serale. Il docente, tal Luca Merli, si presenta bene, loquace e affabulatore. Ricorda il vecchio e caro Cisterna quando raccontava le sue avventure al servizio di Re Bill, intervallandole a giudizi caustici su Java. Giuslavorista da anni, nonché insegnante all’università di Parma (dove non si fa solo il prosciutto come credevo), il Merli inizia un lungo discernimento sui vari contratti di lavoro per arrivare poi a concentrarsi sulla legge Biagi. Parte citando la Costituzione (art. 1), che dice di usare come la Bibbia nel suo lavoro. La prima fonte del diritto in effetti è proprio quella. L’imprenditore panzone, ancora col veleno in corpo dalle precedenti lezioni sulle banche, cita varie esperienze e termina con un “diocane io le farebbe chiude tutte le cooperative e brucerebbe i capannoni“. L’opinionista interviene parlando di costo del lavoro in italia e in europa, sempre interessanti e cortesi i suoi appunti. Intanto il napuliello si è organizzato mettendo la sveglia del telefono per ricordare al professore la scadenza delle pause, ilarità generale della classe quando suona la prima volta. Proprio durante la prima pausa di oggi si scopre la vera identità dell’opinionista: proprietario di una catena di supermercati. Il napuliello, informato di ciò dall’imprenditore panzone che si vanta di conoscere l’opinionista da anni, si fa il segno della croce in ossequio a cotanto capitale.

Quando si arriva alla legge Biagi, arrivano i dolori. L’imprenditore panzone si scatena e attacca i magistrati, terminando con “a sto punto tocca dare ragione a berlusconi“. Il docente sorride e sottolinea: “oh, io non ho detto niente!“. Dopo una ricerca scopro che Luca Merli è in forza al Pdl di Perugia. Si mette male.

Marco Biagi fu definito “un assassino” da qualche rivoluzionario italiano in forza a Rifondazione di cui ora non mi sovviene il nome, sebbene sia stato assassinato a sua volta dalle fantomatiche nuove brigate rosse. La sua colpa fu quella di aver studiato il mondo del lavoro italiano, andando in cerca di lavoro sommerso, atipico e quant’altro. I risultanti furono sorprendenti e il governo lo incaricò di studiare anche una riforma. Biagi iniziò il suo lavoro e nel frattempo il governo gli tolse la scorta.Boom, addio Biagi. Dunque la soluzione (o legge) Biagi al problema del lavoro atipico non esiste, lui studiò il problema ed altri lo hanno risolto. Quindi i Co.co.co non sono colpa di Biagi, non sono colpa delle imprese, va a finire che la colpa è dei lavoratori che li firmano.
Si prosegue con le libertà sul lavoro: politica, di culto e di espressione. Sul culto arrivano le dolenti note, parte la ramanzina sul: -io rispetto tutti, anche perché l’italia è un paese di emigranti, ma i nostri nonni negli altri paesi hanno sempre rispettato regole, usi e costumi.-

A questa proprio non posso non replicare. Alzo la manina: -scusi, anche Al Capone rispettava regole usi e costumi?-. Sorriso del docente che maschera il fallimento della dottrina, la classe ride pensando a Il Padrino e si passa al crocifisso nei luoghi pubblici. La guerra non è finita.

-Praticante o no, il crocifisso è uno dei simboli della nostra Repubblica, come la bandiera e la foto del presidente, anche se ultimamente è un po’ rincoglinito..-

-L’italia è uno stato laico, come dice la Costituzione. Il crocifisso non c’entra nulla con i luoghi pubblici.-

La classe inizia a rumoreggiare.

-E’ un segno delle nostre radici, e poi vai giù in Arabia a farti il segno della croce, vedrai se non ti arrestano!- Parole di uno che insegna all’università di Parma, allora era vero che facevano solo prosciutti.

Ribatto qualcosa, ma ormai ho scoperto il nervo e la classe è inquieta. Sono circondato da Berluscones, il docente placa tutti e va avanti con la lezione, un po’ infastidito dalla vocina contradditoria che, per qualche minuto, ho rappresentato. Sono ancora il vecchio leone delle superiori, una volta mi ricordo feci piangere una bigotta semplicemente dicendo che non poteva criticare le prostitute dato che si vestiva allo stesso modo.

Serginho Cofferati

Continua la mia abilitazione alla pratica di commerciante eversivo, l’eversione la aggiungo per non sembrare come gli altri poveretti che ho come compagni di ventura. Oggi si parla di amministrazione, bilancio,crediti, storni di uccelli neri, com’esuli pensieri, nel vespero migrar. Si parte dai rapporti con le banche, con occhio rivolto alle aperture di credito. la linea guida, il principio fondante, deve essere: “il breve con il breve, il medio con il medio, il lungo con il lungo.” Mentre valuto l’opportunità di farmi tatuare la regola, inevitabilmente parte il dibattito su banche e crediti.

L’imprenditore panzone, nel citare la sua vita fatta di bilanci, arriva a recitare un’arringa contro Profumo (ad di Unimerdit) e Passera. La desperate housewife, oggi con vestitino provocante per quanto abominevole, prende appunti anche sulle opinioni, mentre l’anziano con le nike e l’orologio d’oro distilla perle di saggezza sulla liquidità dei grandi gruppi bancari. La docente lo chiama per cognome, anteponendo il prefisso “signor”, come si faceva una volta per quelli importanti (signor curato, signor sindaco). Probabilmente l’anziano non è un alunno come gli altri ma ricopre il ruolo di opinionista. Il panzone rincara la dose scagliandosi contro l’istituto del rating, la docente modera ma storcendo la bocca, mostrando di condividere le bordate populistico-finanziarie nonostante la sua posizione di docente glielo dovrebbe impedire.

La lezione continua, si parla di contabilità e bilancio e la malinconia mi travolge come la ventata di un treno merci in transito. Dieci anni fa scaldavo un banco dell’ITC Vittorio Emanuele II mentre la sig.ra Platoni spiegava le stesse cose. Il metodo era diverso, e lo stile pure: la Plata era la classica grezzotta autosostenuta, insegnava la sua litania alternandola a lezioni incentrate sulla sua vita privata. Dalle modalità del sugo alle disavventure nella spesa al Pam di S.Marco. All’esame di stato la tentazione di scrivere la ricetta del sugo Platoni fu forte, tanto più che in pagella avevo strappato un 8 barattandolo per del sordido facchinaggio in occasione della gita scolastica a Parigi. Era il 2002, l’esame di stato fu una barzelletta, com’era giusto che fosse data la levatura dei professori (escludo italiano e informatica, quest’ultima perché il prof. assomigliava a Guccini da giovane). Nel marzo di quel anno Cofferati ci portò in piazza contro l’abrogazione dell’articolo 18 dello Statuto dei lavoratori (Jorgio rimase a scuola perché c’era il compito di matematica, non c’è occasione in cui non rimarco questo suo scheletro nell’armadio).

Esco dalla malinconia, svegliandomi negli ultimi minuti di lezione. Vengo a sapere che nella prossima si parlerà di diritto del lavoro, con giuslavorista in quota Pdl. Stringo libri appunti al petto come le studentesse sognanti dei college americani, e mi perdo nell’immagine del povero Sergio.

O Governo Aécio Neves , por meio da Secretaria de Estado Extraordinária para Assuntos de Reforma Agrária (Seara) e o Instituto de Terras do Estado de Minas Gerais (Iter), realiza na próxima terça-feira (20) pregão eletrônico para a escolha das empresas que farão o cadastro e a medição georreferenciada em mais 40 municípios beneficiados pelo Convênio nº 1.000/2009, firmado em julho com o Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (Incra). Nesta licitação serão beneficiadas cerca de 70 mil pessoas.

Em agosto, foi feita a licitação para 29 municípios também integrantes dos Territórios da Cidadania, localizados nos Vales do Jequitinhonha e do Mucuri, para a realização do cadastramento e medições. Na oportunidade, foram licitados 11.985 áreas, que beneficiarão cerca de 60 mil pessoas. Assim, com os dois pregões eletrônicos deverão ser beneficiadas cerca de 130 mil pessoas, com a entrega de cerca de 26 mil títulos de propriedade.

O valor total dos contratos a serem assinados após a realização do pregão gira em torno de R$ 7 milhões, para licitar 14.061 áreas. No primeiro pregão, o valor dos contratos assinados com quatro empresas de georreferenciamento somou R$ 4.901.824,70, com custo médio de R$ 408,99. O convênio assinado com o Incra soma R$ 15.028.321,01, sendo R$ 12 milhões da autarquia federal e mais R$ 3.028.321,01 da contrapartida estadual.

O Programa de Regularização Fundiária privilegia a ação nos municípios de menor Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano Municipal (IDH-M) e Produto Interno Bruto (PIB). Isto porque há uma correlação direta entre o baixo percentual de regularização de terras devolutas estaduais e os dois indicadores. Como salienta o secretário de Estado Extraordinário para Assuntos de Reforma Agrária e diretor-geral em exercício do Iter, Manoel Costa: “Quanto menor o IDH, menor o índice de regularização fundiária”.

Com o Título, as famílias de posseiros adquirem a segurança jurídica da posse. Os benefícios da regularização fundiária são muitos, como o acúmulo de riqueza com a valorização da propriedade; acesso a linhas de crédito, sabendo-se que se investe com a segurança jurídica de que o bem está protegido; responsabilidade pela defesa do meio ambiente; giro maior de dinheiro no município e fixação da família na zona rural, evitando o êxodo rural, entre outros.

Grupos

As empresas que se habilitarem para essa ação disputarão os trabalhos em municípios divididos em nove grupos. Caso haja um maior número de medição, elas deverão fazer o cadastro e enviá-lo ao Iter para análise e consequente autorização para medir a propriedade.

No bloco “A”, totalizando 1.358 áreas, estão incluídos cinco municípios. Estes municípios, com o respectivo número de medições, são: Itambacuri (709), Campanário (84), Pescador (45), Frei Gaspar (184) e Ataléia (336).

O grupo “B”, com 1.495 licitações, ficou apenas o município de Teófilo Otoni.

No grupo “C” estão: Carlos Chagas (206), Nanuque (153), Serra dos Aimorés (138), Pavão (48), Novo Oriente de Minas (216), Crisólita (34), Águas Formosas (493), Umburatiba (61) e Machacalis (264). Ao todo serão 1.613 medições.

No grupo “D”, totalizando 1.432 licitações, estão agrupados, Fronteira dos Vales (388), Santa Helena de Minas (297) e Bertópolis (63), Monte Formoso (38), Joaíma (250) e Palmópolis (396).

Já no bloco “E” foram listados quatro municípios. São eles: Felisburgo (133), Rio do Prado (509), Rubim (340) e Santo Antônio do Jacinto (453), totalizando 1.435 licitações.

O bloco “F” engloba cinco municípios, num total de 1.615 propriedades. Nele estão Jacinto (513), Santa Maria do Salto (160), Salto da Divisa (42), Jordânia (567) e Bandeira (333).

Com três municípios, o bloco “G” terá 1.341 áreas a serem medidas. Elas ficam em Mata Verde (123), Divisópolis (196) e Almenara (1.022).

Itaobim (482), Pedra Azul (570) e o município de Jequitinhonha (541) integram o bloco “H”, totalizando 1.593 áreas a serem licitadas.

O nono bloco, o “I”, inclui quatro municípios. Serão 2.179 áreas a serem medidas. Os municípios beneficiados são: Águas Vermelhas (711), Cachoeira de Pajeú (541), Comercinho (631) e Medina (296), totalizando 2.179 medições.

Ouça a Rádio Minas em Pauta

[BPSDB]In a debate about Greenpeace’s alleged predeliction for, shall we say, embellishing facts over on Bad Science, attention was drawn to this. Greenpeace oppose fusion research and think that the money being spent on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) would be better spent on renewable energy. That is their right but they do not help their case here.

First off, they are right to say that fusion is not going to be the solution to climate change. A commercial fusion powerplant is decades away (Cynics sometimes say we are 40 years from commercial fusion – and always will be) but we need to limit carbon dioxide emissions now. Having said that, if fusion research pays off then there will be enough energy to maintain an advanced industrial civilisation for everybody for literally millions of years. Greenpeace’s statement that it will lead to a dead end is a statement of faith not scientific fact. Research is being done because nobody knows whether fusion is viable or not.

The press release then says:

“Today, the nuclear industry presents itself as the solution to climate change in a massive green-washing drive. Far from being a solution, the nuclear option stalls real action to combat dangerous climate change. It is taking away the money for real solutions that are ready and economically available at a large scale, such as wind energy.”

The nuclear industry runs fission plants which Greenpeace oppose of course. Here they conflate commercial fission plants with ITER. I cannot be certain as to why but people who know little physics might be fooled into thinking fission and ITER are pretty much the same thing.

Greenpeace appear to be ignoring the fact that our energy has to be supplied from somewhere. Their spokesperson Jan Van de Putte talks of renewables but they will simply not be enough. Domestic solar panels and wind generators are becoming increasingly common and do indeed reduce ones demands on the National Grid but they do not reduce the demand to zero. So even if we all lived in houses fitted with solar panels and windmills, we would still require commercially produced electricity. And that is just for domestic use. Add in industrial needs and the requirement increases yet further. Van de Putte talks blithely of renewables but the wind farms and solar panels needed to deliver all our electricity needs would cover an enormous area. Already NIMBYs are opposing the building of wind farms. So for the time being, we are going to need fission reactors.

The release then goes on to say:-

“Fusion energy – if it would ever operate – would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons.”

I really do not know to what “serious waste problem” they refer. Now it is true that if a reactor uses deuterium-tritium fusion then there will be a lot of neutrons flying about and they will make the reactor vessel radioactive over time. However, Greenpeace refer to the emission of radioactve material which implies gaseous waste. The end product of fusion is helium which is not the slightest bit radioactive. Tritium is indeed a radioactive gas but since it iwill be a fuel in this kind of reactor one presumes the operators will not be too keen on their plants emitting any.

As for producing materials for nuclear weapons, I suppose the reactors could be surrounded with uranium so that the fusion neutrons will produce plutonium but frankly the military will find it easier to continue to produce plutonium in breeder reactors. Tritium and deuterium can be used in fusion bombs but deuterium is obtained by electrolising heavy water and tritium is currently produced without the need for fusion reactors.

If Greenpeace are serious about tackling climate change, they would do well to refrain from issuing press releases that contain factoids that the reasonably well informed can spot as nonsense. By doing so, they risk turning the undecided against them and actually damaging the environmental cause.

Xconomy first broke the news on 24 July 2009 that General Fusion, a Burnaby, British Columbia-based fusion startup, had raised $9 million out of a $12.5 million equity offering. Then, the investors were undisclosed but include a syndicate from the US, UK, and Canada. The company’s board of directors includes members of GrowthWorks Capital and Chrysalix Energy in Vancouver, BC, Braemar Energy Ventures in New York, and Entrepreneurs Fund in London.

However, on 4 Aug 2009, Reuters reported that General Fusion had quietly raised $22 million in early stage funding from venture capitalists. GrowthWorks Capital, Braemar Energy Ventures, Chrysalix Energy Ventures and The Entrepreneurs Fund combined to provide $9 million for General Fusion. The Sustainable Development Canadian Technology Fund, a government entity charged with financing environmentally friendly technology projects, additionally kicked in more than $13 million, contingent on General Fusion’s ability to meet key milestones.

General Fusion is developing a novel method of energy production called magnetized target fusion in which ionized gas is trapped by a magnetic field and compressed in a way that is safe, clean and cost-effective. The company is currently working on a four-year, $50 million demonstration project (2013). The project is being run in parallel with 2 other massive fusion projects: the $6 billion National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US and the $20 billion ITER project in Provence, southern France. You can read this very interesting Forbes article in Oct 2008 about the race for fusion energy pits a giant reactor in France against 2 upstarts in North America. The other startup is Tri Alpha Energy which is backed by Paul Allen’s Vulcan, Venrock, Enel Produzione SpA, Goldman Sachs and PIZ Signal.

The CEO, Doug Richardson, said that “What we’re trying to do is apply modern technology to an old idea.” The technology was abandoned more than 30 years ago because precision controls, computer processing power and plasma technology were not able to sustain its design. “What we’re doing is taking that technology and speeding it up by about a thousand-fold,” said Richardson. General Fusion claims their fusion reactor will be far cheaper and simpler than those giant and expensive reactors such as the one in France. You can read about General Fusion’s technology on their website www.generalfusion.com or check out this Popular Science article which describes the technology more in length and with pictures as well or the Technology Review article.

If General Fusion can meet its first milestones, it may have access to larger rounds of capital. One investor, the Entrepreneurs Fund, is backed by the Brenninkmeijer family, a wealthy family office in Europe. The Brenninkmeijer family also funds Good Energies, an investor in cleantech projects and an early backer in such solar companies as Q-Cells. On its website, it states “General Fusion is a seven year old pre-IPO technology company. It has just completed phase one and is now starting its second round of financing in order to begin work for phase two.” The company which was founded by Doug Richardson and Michel Laberge in 2002 received its seed financing of C$1.2 million in Sep 2007 from Chrysalix Energy. So probably this news is the 2nd round of financing?

I ritardi nel progetto Iter allungano ombre sui piani di sviluppo del primo reattore a fusione nucleare del mondo

Consumo energetico mondiale

L’energia è uno dei più importanti problemi del pianeta. Problema perché inquina, perché porta ad avere relazioni diplomatiche con paesi complessi, perché le guerre son fatte anche per acquisire riserve energetiche e soprattutto,perché l’energia è un bene fondamentale.

Per questi motivi negli anni si sono provati a sviluppare diversi tipi di tecnologie capaci di produrre energia da più fonti, alternative, economiche e meno inquinanti. Eolico, solare e idrogeno son alcuni esempi. Tuttavia, proprio a causa della grande fame di energia, anche il nucleare che dopo il disastro di Chernobyl aveva subito un pesante stop, ora è tornato alla ribalta. I vantaggi del nucleare son però compensati dal grosso problema delle scorie e del loro pesante impatto sull’ambiente. Proprio a causa di ciò si è cercato per anni di sviluppare una seconda via: la fusione nucleare, una tecnologia che sfruttando il processo che alimenta le stelle dovrebbe permettere di produrre moltissima energia senza avere problemi di scorie o di inquinamento. Di questo “parla” ITER un grande progetto internazionale che dovrebbe portare alla costruzione del primo reattore capace di sviluppare una fusione nucleare stabile da cui poi, un ulteriore progetto, DEMO, dovrebbe dare origine alla produzione di energia attraverso questo processo. ITER è un progetto enorme che coinvolge Unione Europea, Russia, Stati Uniti, Cina, Giappone, India e Corea del Sud, dal costo stimato, nel 2001, di 5 miliardi di euro e passato ora a più di 10 miliardi. Il raddoppio del conto, già molto salato, e i dubbi per una tecnologia che dovrebbe cominciare ad esser impiegata solo dal 2025 alimentano gli scettici che vedono il progetto come un costosissimo buco nell’acqua, uno di quei progetti di ricerca infiniti e costosissimi che poi si scoprono avere pochissime applicazioni utili. Ma è davvero così?

Fusione nucleare

La fusione nucleare è considerata da tempo come la soluzione ai mali dell’energia mondiale per grossi vantaggi che ha rispetto alla fissione nucleare, il principio alla base del funzionamento delle comuni centrali nucleari attraverso il quale rompendo l’atomo di un elemento molto pesante, come l’uranio, si ha la liberazione di energia producendo però delle scorie di lavorazione che restano pericolose per migliaia di anni diventando così un potenziale pericolo per le future generazioni. Con la fusione nucleare invece si ottiene energia fondendo un atomo di deuterio con uno di trizio, due isotopi dell’idrogeno, hanno lo stesso numero di protoni ed elettroni (uno) ma diverso numero di neutroni: uno per il deuterio e due per il trizio, mentre l’idrogeno non ne ha. Da questo processo si ottiene un atomo di elio, un gas nobile che perciò non sviluppa alcun tipo di reazione con l’ambiente e che non contribuisce perciò all’effetto serra, che al momento è la principale problematica ambientale del pianeta, e moltissima energia.

Il cuore della stella

Tokamak

La fusione nucleare non è un’invenzione umana perché esiste in natura, nel cosmo. Le stelle infatti, come il sole, “bruciano” attraverso la fusione nucleare. ITER si propone di riprodurre stabilmente questo meccanismo in laboratorio usando una miscela ionizzata di trizio ed il deuterio ed un campo magnetico sviluppato dal Tokamak, una sorta di grande calamita in cui dovrebbero ruotare le particelle di gas. Come ci spiega Alberto Crepaldi, dottorando in fisica all’Ecole Polytechnique Federale di Losanna “nel tokamak sta il cuore della reazione di fusione. Si tratta di un guscio invisibile, fatto dai campi di forza magnetica, che deve contenere la reazione, mettendola nella condizione di durare il più a lungo possibile per produrre più energia. Sicuramente l’aumento dei costi è un problema ma le cose vanno sempre viste nella giusta scala: queste sono cifre minime se pensate a livello di economia mondiale. In più al progetto lavorano i più potenti e ricchi paesi del pianeta e questo rende il “conto” più accessibile. Soprattutto poi bisogna considerare una cosa: che importanza ha che il progetto costi così tanto e che cominci a “lavorare” solo tra una decina di anni quando poi però si sarà risolto finalmente il problema energia? Immaginate un mondo in cui l´energia é gratuita, siamo ai limiti del´utopia, del sogno…Ma con la fusione sarebbe davvero così”

La stella non deve spegnersi.

con la collaborazione di A. Crepaldi – Politecnico Federale di Losanna

]]> http://lastranamalattia.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/diabete-invalidita-e-benefici-di-legge/ Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:40:02 +0000 Tamtam http://lastranamalattia.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/diabete-invalidita-e-benefici-di-legge/ http://green-cotedazur-at-the-bay.com/2009/06/25/tomorrow%e2%80%99s-new-energy-sources/ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:50:02 +0000 teamcotedazur http://green-cotedazur-at-the-bay.com/2009/06/25/tomorrow%e2%80%99s-new-energy-sources/

Today, the Capenergies competitive cluster has gathered over 340 partners from the PACA regions, Corsica and Monaco, which span the whole energy spectrum of tomorrow. Its aim is to develop a global approach for energy consumption, detailing for each type of energy, where to focus on research, what production means are to be established, how to limit consumption etc…

Jean-Christophe Delvallet, Director of Capenergies’ Nice office highlighted that, “The region’s potential in terms of natural and human resources, plus the number of important projects based in the region, which have a high profile both in France and outside (such as the experimental fusion reactor ITER project in Cadarache), is creating the collective push vital to achieving major growth in this sector here”.

Key figures: 165 projects approved since the cluster was set-up in 2005 (60 in 2008 for a total €133M), of which 30 are focused on solar power; over 10,000 companies and 50,000 posts; 3,000 researchers and engineers; 5 universities; 6 engineering schools.

Alpes-Maritimes-approved projects focusing on solar energy include:

Atlas solaire which aims to put together an atlas of the PACA (Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur) region’s photovoltaic solar and thermodynamic potential based on satellite data. The goal is to identify suitable sites for solar energy production, calculate their optimal size and make reliable profitability estimates.

Premio-Enthalpia-SAED (Sophia Antipolis Energie Développement) focuses on low-temperature thermodynamic solar power, which enables energy to be produced as needed, either in a continuous manner on a 24-hour basis, or with high voltage peaks just like a thermal power station. The aim is to be able to produce enough solar electricity to meet the network’s needs without being dependent on sunlight, and to be able to produce it at similar cost per kWhe to the market.

Original news : http://www.investincotedazur.com/en/secteurs-excellence/developpement-durable/news.php?news=act8704#sel

ITER is our hope for our energy requirements in the future, together with NIF (see here). The success of these two experiments should grant that one of the greatest problems of humankind will be solved. ITER is a fusion reactor based on tokamak, a toroidal chamber confining a high-temperature plasma with magnetic fields. Its main aim will be just to demonstrate the feasibility of a full working reactor to satisfy our energy needs. Rumors are widespreading about delays and increasing costs of this project. I have read about this matter on an Italian newspaper (see here). General director Kaname Ikeda is nor confirmirg neither denying these rumors but presently it seems that costs are doubled and the start-up is delayed to 2025 (2018 foreseen) making a large scale available technology a century far in the future. If all this will be confirmed, it will represent a serious setback to our hope for a better future.

Update: A very informative article is appeared in Physics World. See here to read it.

I’ve just finished listening to the Teaching Company course, Great Scientific Ideas That Have Changed The World, lectured by Professor Steven J. Goldman. It’s absolutely excellent, extremely interesting and thought-provoking. One of the strongest notions behind the course is the notion of the idea as the main driving force behind science and not the discovery or invention. This may seem obvious but it’s not so clear cut when you think about it, since there’s a common notion that big leaps forward in Human History is stuff like penicillin and the telephone, and fail to see the scientific thinking behind such advances.

Another interesting point is what Goldman calls Techno-Science, as opposed to pure Science, which is sort of science applied to technology, though not as simply as the way I’ve just put it may sound. The explanation is complex and I simply don’t wield the gift of gab skilfully enough to be able to explain it properly, and I also hope that what I’ve said so far isn’t making a hash of understanding Prof. Goldman’s 36 lectures. But there was an idea left in the air of the last lecture that Science, i.e., knowledge and perception of Nature, is coming to an end and we now have entered an era of Techno-Science alone. Of course, it’s also pointed out that at the end of the 19th century, it was said that the work of Science was at an end (as one would say on Wikipedia, citation needed), whereas whoever said that could hardly have been more wrong.

An interesting case of this idea of the current state of Science and Techno-Science is the Iter fusion reactor being built in the south of France. The concept behind a fusion reactor is heating elements until they become plasma, nad from then on, to achieve “a stage called ignition, where hydrogen atoms start to fuse with each other and release large amounts of energy”, where a successful fusion reactor could be used as a clean, efficient and long-lasting energy source.
The project is in some trouble, with soaring costs and technical difficulties.

Iter was formally launched in 2006 as collaboration between the European Union, the United States, Russia, Japan, China, India and South Korea. The plan was to build the world’s most advanced fusion experiment within 10 years for a budget of $6bn (£3.6bn).

But the grand scheme has been dogged by soaring costs caused by more expensive raw materials and increases in staff numbers. Emails seen by the BBC indicate that the total price of constructing the experiment is now expected to be in excess of $16bn (£10bn).

That’s the economical part of it, the science part is also pretty daunting.

Another huge hurdle is how to contain gases that are 10 times hotter than the Sun. The materials required simply haven’t been invented yet.

Professor Balibar explained: “The most difficult problem is the problem of materials. Some time ago I declared that fusion is like trying to put the Sun in a box – but we don’t know how to make the box.

“The walls of the box, which need to be leak tight, are bombarded by these neutrons which can make stainless steel boil. Some people say it is just a question of inventing a stainless steel which is porous to let these particles through; personally I would have started by inventing this material.”

This basic premise makes the whole concept of nuclear fusion as an energy source, at least for the near future, let alone the solution to the world’s energy problems, improbable. As Professor Sebastien Balibar, director of the French national research laboratory puts it:

“The consequence of all these difficulties is that it’s not going to be tomorrow that one succeeds with fusion. But the energy problem and the climate problem are urgent,” he says.

“The global warming is now – one needs to find a solution immediately, one cannot wait 100 years. The solution to the climate and energy problem is not Iter, (it) is not fusion.”

Food for thought indeed.

Massiivisen fuusioreaktorikokeen ITER:in valmistuminen uhkaa myöhästyä vuoteen 2020 asti. Samalla kokeen kustannukset kasvavat, totta kai. Nyt puhutaan arviolta 10 miljardista eurosta eikä alunperin suunnitellusta 5 miljardista. Kukaan ei ole kuitenkaan yllättynyt, paitsi tietenkin projektia rahoittavien maiden hallitukset. Ootteko kuulleet mistään isommasta fysiikan kokeesta, joka olisi pysynyt alkuperäisessä budjetissaan? Hubblen piti olla 400 miljoonan taalan rojekti, mutta nyt se on niellyt korjauskeikkoineen jo luokkaa 10 miljardia. Jos suunnitelmat pitävät kutinsa ITER tulee olemaan ensimmäinen fuusioreaktori, joka oikeasti tuottaa keskisuuren (fissio)ydinvoimalan verran energiaa. Tuotettu energia menee tosin kaikki harakoille, koska ITER:in idea on osoittaa, että teknologia saadaan toimimaan, eikä tuotettua lämpöenergiaa muuteta sähköksi. Naturessa eräs kirjoittaja vaatii, että veronmaksajien tulee saada tietää täsmällinen hinta koko projektille. Itse olen sitä mieltä, että on parempi, että veronmaksajat eivät tiedä sitä. Lopullinen lasku tulee kuitenkin olemaan sitä luokkaa, että jengi pyörtyy. Ja sitten kun ollaan virottu niin ITER skaalattaisiin tyngäksi, jotta se mahtuisi tiukkoihin budjetteihin. Ja fuusioenergian valjastus karkaisi taas pidemmälle tulevaisuuteen. Se olisi kuitenkin pahin virhe mitä voidaan tehdä, koska fuusioenergia on ainoa tie eteenpäin ja ainoa realistinen tapa ratkaista maapallon nykyiset energiahuolet ja ilmastonmuutoshuolet. Käytännössä kun fuusioenergia tarkottaa sitä, että merivettä sisään voimalaan ja ulos töpselistä 230 V. Eikä grammaakaan hiilidioksidia.

Eli kaikkee ei tarvi tietää! ITER:in budjetti ei sovi herkkähermoisille, mutta luottakaa vaan fyysikkosetiin ja -täteihin. Fuusiovoiman kehitys maksaa kyllä pikkasen, mutta kerran se vaan kirpasee. Ja hei kamoon, USA pisti nykyrahassa mitattuna 24 miljardia Manhattan-projektissa atomipommin kehitttämiseen. Sillä rahalla rakentaisi kaksi ja puoli ITER:iä. Jos mikään muu ei saa innostumaan ITER:in kaltaisista rauhanomaisista projekteista niin ajatelkaa vaikka, että tää on War against the climate change.

National Ignition Facility started this year at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories. This project has the ambition to give an answer to our quest for nuclear fusion as a reliable source of energy.Funded by US government, it has implied delays and cost increase during its realization. But the aims are so relevant that this is worthwhile spent money. The approach for this experiment is that of inertial fusion. This technique uses power lasers to hit a pellet of fusion material. Pressure of light, when applied uniformly on the target, will push nuclei so near to win the effect of the Coulomb barrier and so they start to fuse each other relaxing a large amount of energy. This is our dream of a sun on earth. I think people is also aware of the other way research is pursuing through tokamak where a plasma is heated through different means to achieve the same goal. For this track, ITER is still at very start of its realization.

As usual,  there is a very good article on the New York Times about NIF (see here).  The hope is to solve one of the most difficult problems of humankind. So, we can only wish the best of lucks at NIF.

Los avances en este campo continúan a pesar del desprestigio que arrastra desde hace 20 años

La “fusión fría” permitiría una fuente de energía atómica barata, inagotable y mucho más limpia que la fisión, utilizada en los actuales reactores nucleares. Recientemente, se ha cumplido el 20 aniversario del anuncio de los dos científicos que aseguraron haberlo conseguido, aunque los errores cometidos llevaron a desprestigiar esta área de trabajo. A pesar de ello, científicos en todo el mundo siguen investigando y han logrado interesantes avances en el camino para aprovechar este sistema a escala industrial y satisfacer las cada vez más altas demandas energéticas mundiales. Precisamente, en este vigésimo aniversario, y en la misma ciudad del anuncio fallido, otros científicos han anunciado sus avances al respecto.

Científicos del SPAWAR, el centro de investigación de la Marina de los Estados Unidos (EE.UU.) en San diego, California, han anunciado recientemente lo que consideran una “evidencia significativa” de reacción nuclear de baja energía (LENR en sus siglas en inglés), conocida popularmente como “fusión fría”.

El sistema trata de conseguir la energía liberada por la fusión de átomos ligeros, una reacción que produce un núcleo más pesado. La fusión nuclear se produce de forma natural en las estrellas, pero en unas condiciones de presión y temperatura muy elevadas. Varios países de todo el mundo están invirtiendo miles de millones de euros en el proyecto ITER, con el objetivo de contar, dentro de unos años, con un reactor experimental que permita lograr esta fusión “en caliente” y demostrar su viabilidad como fuente de energía. Por su parte, la “fusión fría” trataría de llegar al mismo resultado que la “fusión caliente”, pero a temperatura ambiente y de forma mucho más sencilla, económica y limpia, lo que además dejaría obsoletas a las centrales nucleares convencionales basadas en la fisión.

La “fusión fría” dejaría obsoletas a las centrales nucleares convencionales basadas en la fisión

Uno de los componentes del equipo del SPAWAR, la química analítica Pamela Mosier-Boss, explica que han utilizado un electrodo compuesto de níquel o de cable de oro en una solución de cloruro de paladio mezclada con deuterio (agua pesada). Al pasar una corriente eléctrica, se provoca una reacción. Los científicos han utilizado un plástico especial, CR-39, para capturar las partículas de alta energía y contar con evidencias de neutrones, lo que probaría que se ha producido una reacción de fusión nuclear.

La idea no es nueva, y para desgracia de los científicos que trabajan en este campo, los precedentes han supuesto una rémora. Precisamente, la fecha del anuncio de los investigadores del SPAWAR, 23 de marzo, y el lugar de la presentación, Salt Lake City, en Utah, EE.UU., fueron también elegidos, hace 20 años, por Martin Fleischmann y Stanley Pons. En aquella ocasión, estos dos científicos afirmaron haber logrado un experimento simple que permitiría lograr la fusión fría. Pero cuando otros científicos en todo el mundo trataron de reproducir en vano los resultados, y se fueron conociendo los errores cometidos, el interés inicial se transformó en descrédito, no sólo para estos dos científicos, sino para todo este campo de investigación.

Sin embargo, dos décadas después, “el rechazo se ha suavizado muchísimo”, según el catedrático de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM) Carlos Sánchez López, responsable en aquella época del único experimento español de fusión fría. En este sentido, afirma que merece la pena seguir los progresos del grupo del SPAWAR, ya que “lleva en el tema muchos años y con resultados y experimentos muy sobresalientes”.

¿Funciona ya la fusión fría?

El anuncio de los investigadores del SPAWAR no significa que se cuente ya con un sistema consolidado de producción de energía. Como explica el profesor Sánchez, muchos grupos, incluido el suyo, han logrado la “fusión fría”, pero el problema es que todavía resulta aleatorio que un experimento funcione o no: “Desde el punto de vista científico, no sirve hasta que no se logre su reproducibilidad, es decir, que todos los científicos puedan obtener los mismos resultados realizando el mismo experimento. Pero estoy seguro de que llegaremos.” En caso de lograrlo, el siguiente paso sería que el sistema produjera más energía de la que necesita para funcionar y de forma económica, de manera que pudiera ser utilizado a escala industrial.

Asimismo, algunos expertos recuerdan que, si bien el sistema es más limpio que el empleado en las actuales centrales nucleares de fisión, no es inocuo: las futuras plantas de fusión tendrían que controlar la radiación de neutrones que se emiten y los residuos producidos en el proceso. Eso sí, la vida media de dichos residuos sería corta, ya que en medio siglo no serían peligrosos, y en 300 años prácticamente inertes, frente a los miles de años de radiactividad de los residuos producidos en las actuales centrales.

Por otra parte, la falta de materiales del sistema o su carestía también podrían suponer otro problema. En este sentido, la primera reacción económica tras el anuncio, hace 20 años, de los científicos Fleischmann y Pons, fue la subida del precio del paladio, uno de los elementos de su aparato.

Además del grupo del SPAWAR, otros investigadores en EE.UU., Japón, Canadá y Europa, con ayuda de fondos públicos o privados, trabajan para reproducir el experimento de fusión fría. La nueva denominación, “reacción nuclear de baja energía (LENR)”, además de haber servido para huir de la mala fama, se utiliza para evidenciar los descubrimientos de los últimos años, explica Carlos Sánchez y añade: “El fenómeno es mucho más amplio de lo que originalmente se creyó, resultando no sólo en posibles reacciones de fusión, sino también en otros posibles procesos nucleares sobre los que aún se sabe poco. En definitiva, la fusión fría se considera viable, pero se asume que producirla de manera regular va a ser muy difícil.”

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR

En este sentido, durante agosto de 2008 se celebraba en Washington el decimocuarto congreso sobre fusión fría (ICCF-14), al que asistieron los principales expertos internacionales. Según Sánchez, se pusieron de manifiesto “considerables progresos: el fenómeno se conoce mucho más, tanto en su complejidad y variadas vertientes como en una mejor definición del mismo y, por lo tanto, las posibilidades de llegar a controlarlo y a reproducirlo por completo han aumentado considerablemente”.

En este esfuerzo, destacan también los trabajos de Yoshiaki Arata, catedrático emérito de la Universidad japonesa de Osaka. Hace unos diez años, este científico empezó a trabajar en fusión fría diseñando un sistema diferente al que usaban los demás investigadores. Con el tiempo, lo ha seguido perfeccionando junto a su equipo y ha realizado investigaciones paralelas sobre los constituyentes de su electrodo, en particular nanopartículas de paladio embebidas en óxidos metálicos, de circonio principalmente. En opinión del catedrático de la UAM, “ha contribuido notablemente al progreso en el campo y es, sin duda, el que está más cerca de conseguir un control completo y una reproducibilidad segura del fenómeno”. Sánchez no cree que se produzcan discontinuidades en este trabajo, “aunque Arata es ya mayor, su grupo es sólido”, apostilla.

La fusión fría se considera viable, pero se asume que producirla de manera regular va a ser muy difícil

Por otra parte, también son interesantes las investigaciones de Tadahiko Mizuno, de la Universidad japonesa de Hokkaido, que ha informado de la producción de exceso de generación de calor y emisiones de rayos gamma de un dispositivo no convencional de LENR que utiliza un tipo de hidrocarburo, fenantreno, como reactante (el material inicial que participa en una reacción química). Asimismo, Antonella De Ninno, científica del ENEA, la Agencia Nacional Italiana de Nuevas Tecnologías de Energía y Medio Ambiente, trabaja en experimentos interesantes que demuestran la producción simultánea de exceso de calor y helio.

Las posibilidades energéticas y económicas de la fusión fría, unido a que se trata de experimentos que no necesitan complicados ni caros equipos científicos, han contribuido a la aparición de los denominados “fusioneros”. Se trata de gente que ha montado de forma casera un laboratorio de fusión, y que ha organizado en Internet una comunidad de más de 100 personas en todo el mundo…[]

Fuente www.consumer.es

 Europa, Japón y la organización del ITER han conseguido un hito en su empeño por crear un reactor de fusión nuclear. Fusion for Energy (F4E) ha probado con éxito un prototipo de superconductor para un componente principal del proyecto ITER con el apoyo de la Comisión Europea, el Organismo Japonés de Energía Atómica (JAEA) y la organización del ITER.

El ITER, la instalación de fusión experimental más grande del mundo, está localizada en el sur de Francia y tiene como objetivo aprovechar la energía producida por fusión nuclear con el fin de proporcionar una fuente abundante de energía segura, responsable con el medio ambiente y viable económicamente.

La fusión nuclear, o la unión de pequeños núcleos para formar uno mayor, es un proceso por el que se genera energía y que ocurre de forma natural en las estrellas. Produce menos material radioactivo y genera una cantidad de energía considerablemente mayor que la fisión nuclear y, si la comparamos con la combustión del carbón, la diferencia es de millones de veces en cuanto a su magnitud. Desde la década de los cincuenta, la comunidad científica ha intentado controlar la energía de fusión nuclear en un espacio contenido para generar electricidad.

En la fusión nuclear, los iones se mezclan con electrones y dan lugar a un plasma. Uno de los retos que se plantean al intentar controlar la fusión nuclear consiste en confinar y prender este plasma de forma autónoma. El ITER es un experimento internacional en el que se utiliza un tokamak, máquina que produce un campo magnético toroidal para confinar el plasma.

Los componentes del ITER son fabricados por cada uno de los países participantes. Uno de los componentes básicos es un conjunto de bobinas de campo poloidal que sirve para mantener el equilibrio del plasma. Las bobinas se construyen con titanio y niobio y dan forma al interior del reactor.

El sistema de bobinas se compone de una central y siete en anillo devanadas con un gran conductor «cable en conducto» y cubierto por una envoltura de acero inoxidable. Está previsto que este sistema genere campos magnéticos que confinen el plasma y controlen su posición, además de contribuir al «cambio de flujo» magnético que se incrementa y mantiene la corriente del plasma.

El prototipo mide 1,5 metros de diámetro, pesa seis toneladas y es fruto de la colaboración entre Rusia, Europa y Japón. Investigadores rusos fabricaron las líneas superconductoras con las que se formaron las bobinas, mientras que investigadores europeos colocaron la envoltura mencionada y devanaron el conductor. La bobina se probó en el Organismo Japonés de Energía Atómica en Naka (Japón) con la presencia de expertos del ITER, Europa, Japón, Rusia y Estados Unidos.

La última prueba del sistema de bobinas prototipo fue todo un éxito, dado que las bobinas alcanzaron un funcionamiento estable a 52kA en un campo magnético de 6,3-Tesla. Esto indica que el diseño del prototipo es adecuado para cumplir su cometido. El éxito supone un hito en la investigación de la fusión nuclear, puesto que permite que el proyecto pueda pasar al diseño del siguiente componente: los conductores de campo poloidal.

El ITER es uno de los proyectos científicos más caros del mundo y la UE sufragará casi la mitad del coste de construcción. El resto será financiado a partes iguales por China, India, Japón, República de Corea, Rusia y Estados Unidos. La contribución de la UE proviene casi al completo del presupuesto de Euratom.

Se calcula que el proyecto ITER tendrá una duración de treinta años. Uno de los objetivos del proyecto es el de realizar la primera operación con plasma en 2018 y crear una central de energía completa antes de 2050. Fusion for Energy es una empresa común de 35 años de duración establecida en abril de 2007 cuyo propósito es reforzar el liderazgo europeo en el desarrollo de la energía de fusión. Se espera que esta tecnología proporcione el cada vez más necesario suministro de energía sin generar gases de efecto invernadero, los cuales alteran el clima mundial.

La fusión fría es el nombre genérico dado a cualquier reacción nuclear de fusión producida a temperaturas muy inferiores a las necesarias para la producción de reacciones termonucleares (millones de grados Celsius).

De manera común el nombre se asocia a experimentos realizados a finales de la década de 1980 en células electrolíticas en las que se sugería que se podía producir la fusión de deuterio en átomos de helio produciendo grandes cantidades de energía. Estos experimentos fueron publicados en la revista científica Nature, pero la fusión fría como tal fue descartada al poco tiempo por otros equipos, constituyendo el artículo de Nature uno de los fraudes más escandalosos de la ciencia en los tiempos modernos.

El experimento de Pons y Fleischmann

El 23 de marzo de 1989 los químicos Stanley Pons y Martin Fleischmann, de la Universidad de Utah, realizaron una conferencia de prensa en la que anunciaron la producción de fusión fría con la consiguiente liberación de energía. El anuncio fue considerado sorprendente al tenerse en cuenta el sencillo equipamiento necesario para producir tal reacción: un par de electrodos conectados a una batería y sumergidos en un recipiente de agua pesada rica en deuterio. El anuncio fue reflejado a nivel internacional constituyendo portadas en la mayoría de los periódicos. Habiendo trabajado Pons y Fleischmann en su experimento desde el año 1984, consiguieron fondos del Departamento de Energía de los Estados Unidos en el año 1988 para una larga serie de experimentos. El término fusión fría había sido acuñado por el Dr. Paul Palmer, de la Universidad Brigham Young, en 1986, en investigaciones sobre la posibilidad de la producción de reacciones de fusión atómica en el interior de un núcleo planetario. El término fue entonces aplicado al experimento de Fleischmann y Pons en 1989.

En tan sólo unos días, científicos de todo el mundo intentaron repetir los resultados de los experimentos. Durante unas seis semanas se produjeron anuncios de verificación, retractación y explicaciones alternativas que mantuvieron el interés de los periódicos sobre el tema, sin conseguir resultados definitivos. Poco después, el escepticismo sobre la fusión fría fue aumentando a medida que diferentes investigadores eran incapaces de reproducir los resultados del experimento de Pons y Fleishchmann. A finales de mayo, el Departamento de Energía de los Estados Unidos formó un grupo especial de investigadores para determinar la veracidad o no de la fusión fría. El comité de expertos trabajó durante cinco meses en un estudio en el que se afirmaba que no existía evidencia alguna de fusión fría, y que tales efectos contradirían todo el conocimiento adquirido sobre las reacciones nucleares durante la última media década. El comité recomendaba específicamente no financiar investigaciones costosas sobre este tema.

Investigaciones actuales en fusión fría

Hoy en día se siguen realizando esfuerzos en la búsqueda de reacciones nucleares del tipo de la fusión fría, a pesar de que el engaño de los años 80 quedó marcado en la comunidad científica. Estos esfuerzos son realizados por una parte minoritaria aunque significativa de dicha comunidad.

Una de las vías que más dan que hablar en la actualidad se basa en experimentos sobre la Sonoluminiscencia. Este fenómeno fue descubierto por D.F. Gaitan y otros a principios de los 90 en la universidad de Missisipi, y se basa en la emisión de luz (entre otros tipos de radiación) del interior de burbujas sometidas a excitaciones acústicas. El fenómeno ha sido intensamente estudiado por la comunidad y siguen encontrándose publicaciones al respecto.Recientemente, en el año 2002, el profesor Rusi P. Taleyarkhan junto a otros miembros del Oak Ridge National Laboratory publicaron en la revista Science un artículo llamado “Evidence for nuclear emissions during acoustic cavitation” afirmando que observan emisiones de neutrones de alta energía en este tipo de experimentos. Sin embargo, este artículo ha levantado las voces de numerosos escépticos que no reproducen sus resultados, recordándonos a los tristes acontecimientos de Pons y Fleischmann. En el 2006, el profesor Taleyarkhan ha vuelto a publicar nuevas pruebas para ratificar sus interpretación de los experimentos, con nuevas reacciones desde la misma revista Nature. Ciertamente, la comunidad científica, escarmentada después de tantos años, se encuentra poco receptiva para nuevos avances a este respecto.

En 2004 se comentó, debido a la continuidad de los experimentos de Pons y Fleischmann por parte de la armada de Estados Unidos de América, que una posible razón del fiasco al intentar reproducir el experimento original podría ser que se requiere de un agua pesada de una gran pureza, que sobrepasa los niveles habituales. Pons y Fleishchmann disponían de un agua pesada de gran pureza. Parece que finalmente la investigación sigue abierta, si bien no se han publicado los resultados puesto que los científicos son más cautos que nunca tras la experiencia de 1989. Más información sobre dichas investigaciones en el artículo La fusión fría vuelve de entre los muertos.

En mayo del 2008 se ha publicado un artículo en la revista italiana Il sole 24 ore., donde se afirma que el científico Japonés Yoshiaki Arata, ha logrado la fusión fría utilizando presión para introducir gas deuterio en un pila que contenía paladio (Pd) y óxido de zirconio (ZrO2) provocando que los atomos de deuterio se fusionaran en atomos de Helio, produciendo en el proceso una cantidad considerable de calor.

Taringa.net

Relacionados:

Energía nuclear híbrida
Primeras evidencias visibles del proceso de fusión fría
El láser más poderoso del mundo recrea las condiciones del ‘corazón’ del Sol
Energía nuclear híbrida

Otsani rypistyi eilen, kun luin, että Itävalta aikoo lopettaa yli 50 vuotta kestäneen jäsenyytensä Euroopan hiukkastutkimusjärjestö CERN:issä. Perimmäinen syy tähän tempaukseen on tietenkin se, että fysiikan rahoitustilanne on suoraan sanoen kauhea ja rahaa ohjataan koko ajan muille aloille. Ohi ovat kylmän sodan vuodet, kun oli Vihollinen ja huomattiin, että nämä strangelovet pystyvätkin valjastamaan atomiydinten energian. Silloin luvattiin N kpl hyvää ja M kpl kaunista kunhan vaan tutkimukset etenevät. Mutta ei enää. Lisäksi fysiikan rahoitus on viime vuosina enenevässä määrin siirtynyt yritysten ja muiden ulkopuolisten rahoittajien kontolle. Nyt kun lama paukahti päälle ja rahahanat sulkeutuvat yksi toisensa jälkeen, niin perustutkimusta tekevät fyysikot ovatkin pahan paikan edessä – ja sit vielä valtiotkin pettää. Fyysikot eivät ole myöskään onnistuneet rahastamaan ilmastonmuutoksella kovastipaljon. ITER:in rakennus on käynnissä, hienoa, sekä uusiutuvien energiamuotojen tutkimus, mahtavaa, mutta pitäisikö vähän kyynisesti sanoa, ettei se ilmastonmuutos kerkeä tarpeeksi paljon vaikuttaa tämän sukupolven elämään, että ihmisten mielestä energiavaihtoehtojen tutkimisella olisi niin suunnaton hoppu.

Itävallan päätöksessä ihmetytti kuitenkin ajoitus. He ovat kiltisti maksaneet 17 miljoonan jäsenmaksuaan vuosikausia, kun LHC hiukkaskiihdytintä rakennettiin. Nyt kun se viimein on valmis ja hyvää fysiikkaa on ehkä luvassa, niin itävaltalaiset sanovatkin, että se on ny niinku bänät. Onnea Itävallalle vain valitsemallaan tiellä, mutta itse katson päätöksen olevan aika lyhytnäköisin perustein tehty. Vaikka tiede ei kiinnostaisikaan, eikä edes 170 itävaltalaisen duunit CERN:issä, niin olisin kuvitellut, että CERN:in tarjoamaa asiantuntijaympäristöä ja isojen projektien spin-offeja oltaisiin arvostettu.

There are two ‘varieties’ of nuclear power. Nuclear fission is the one we currently have available and nuclear fusion is one that is currently researched but years away from being available as an energy source. I will make a separate post about nuclear fusion and only write about nuclear fission in this one.

Many people would probably avoid nuclear fission if asked. That is a mistake, however. In my previous post, Renewable Energy Sources, I pointed out that we need ’steady energy’ sources, which most renewable energy sources unfortunately are not. If there is no wind, there also is no power from wind.

It is of course important to save energy wherever possible by using energy efficient equipment and technology. However, our modern society cannot function without energy. Simple things we take for granted would simply cease to function without energy, think iPhone, web, lighting, refrigerator, the list goes on and on. This makes it unlikely that energy demand can be met by renewable sources and attitional sources for energy are needed.

Fortunately we already have a energy source and it’s called nuclear fission. The problem with this technologies are the operational safety of the reactors and the nuclear waste that needs to be handled. It would be nice if a breakthrough were made in nuclear fusion technology so that we could directly switch to that technology. However, we are probably stuck with nuclear fission for some time. Until this time we will have to make the best or nuclear fission.

The problem with this is that most reactors in service today are either old designs or are nearing the end of their productive life. They either need to be shut down or replaced with newer, safer and more efficient, versions. Old nuclear reactors are also a potential source of problems because, as with any technology, the older it gets, the more likely things are going to fail. In my view is thus irresponsible not to replace these aging reactors.

It is important to keep the timeline in mind here. For example Generation IV nuclear reactors are not thought to be available before 2030. This means that some new Generation III+ reactors will need to be built in the coming years to avoid any gap in energy supply.

Being a non-renewable natural resource uranium, the fuel needed for nuclear fission, will run out some day – at least the reserves known on this planet. The predictions for ‘peak uranium vary’.  There are, thankfully, other sources for uranium than mining. The Encyclopedia of Earth names the uranium of nuclear arms and thorium as possible extensions or replacements of uranium. My conclusion is that uranium supply is not a real issue, because it is a temporary thing the live of which can be extended until replacement technologies are available.

However, I wouldn’t place all the eggs in the same basket so it’s better to put up a few more stimulus dollars and speed up the research and development of fusion reactors. This is a stimulus alright, because you will need (nuclear) engineers, phycisist, technicians who need to be trained first and who will then certainly find a job other than in financial institutions.