Fusion?

daveswoodhauler Posted By daveswoodhauler, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:21 PM

  1. daveswoodhauler

    daveswoodhauler
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    May 20, 2008
    1,847
    96
    Loc:
    Massachusetts
  2. maverick06

    maverick06
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Sep 27, 2008
    765
    40
    Loc:
    media, pa
    fusion... I think I had that happen when i decided to toss the stub of a candle into my fully going wood stove.... wait... no that was fission....


    in seriousness, this is something that has been on going for some time (70's?)... when/if it happens, power will be "too cheap to meter"
     
  3. Jags

    Jags
    Moderate Moderator 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Aug 2, 2006
    17,421
    6,039
    Loc:
    Northern IL
    I like the way this dude is approaching it. I sure hope it works out for him and turns him into a billionaire while allowing me to have cheap electric bills.
     
  4. jharkin

    jharkin
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Oct 21, 2009
    3,736
    1,228
    Loc:
    Holliston, MA USA
    This sounds familiar.. think I might have read about it someplace before.

    I really hope one of these fusion schemes works. Its really the one miracle cure I think could change everything if it becomes a practical reality. Too bad its been 50 years away for 50 years.
     
  5. Adabiviak

    Adabiviak
    Feeling the Heat 2.
    NULL
    

    Dec 7, 2008
    309
    23
    Loc:
    Sierra Nevadas, California
    I just hope we (the United States) aren't to skittish to embrace this 'nuclear' technology when/if it comes out, given our lousy attempts at fission. By lousy, I mean that our fission reactors are based on reactions focused on enriching uranium, as opposed to reactions focused on the safest, cheapest way to produce energy. Our fission reactors are also running on relatively old designs, so there are somewhat legitimate reasons to be concerned about the current state of fission (as opposed to the overall concept of fission as an energy source).

    Also, if he nails contained, sustained, energy-positive fusion reactions (and manages to not botch copyrights/patents such that he's not making some sort of royalty), I think "billions of dollars" will be a low estimate.
     
  6. woodgeek

    woodgeek
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 27, 2008
    3,617
    629
    Loc:
    SE PA
    Let me get this straight--we can't use already cheap wind and solar because of intermittancy--we can't build a BATTERY cheap enough to put energy in and out of on a daily basis, waaah--but we will build a FUSION REACTOR whose operating costs and amortized equipment costs will be <10 cents/kWh. Riiight.
     
  7. Adabiviak

    Adabiviak
    Feeling the Heat 2.
    NULL
    

    Dec 7, 2008
    309
    23
    Loc:
    Sierra Nevadas, California
    The intermittent nature of solar and wind power just makes them a nice way to keep a little load off the "real" grid, for those of us lucky enough to be rich enough and to have enough real estate in the right place to pursue those endeavors. Urban and industrial needs mandate high, sustained levels of power, which has to come from somewhere. I'll take fusion over hydroelectric, current fission tech, coal, or gas any time.
     

Share This Page