I don't think it's fusion per see that the problem I think it's form of fusion we are pursuing that's so problematic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

A noted researcher joked that the Russians developed the Tokomak so no one else would be able to develop fusion.

There two primary problems:

1. The reaction produces a high energy neutron that has lots of energy that's difficult to contain
2. It's difficult to contain all the plasma.

A researcher by the name Robert Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard proposed a different form of fusion based on lithium and born instead of fusing two hydrogen nuclei. Bussard's idea is called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell Polywell reactor. This project is very promising according to Dr. Nebel head researcher he believes that it can begin producing net energy within six years:

You know that line in Shrek 2 where the farmgirl says "I'll be true--- enough."

That's the way I feel about fission. It's sustainable--- enough. That is, breeder reactors, preferably thorium, not the reactor style we have now that churns through uranium like it's going out of style.

If we can get enough net energy out of nuclear it can be put to good use to help the environment. Maybe have nukes that do nothing but sequester carbon. It could be better than powerdown alone if it's used properly.

We had a thread on Bussard and Polywell, if you're interested. That would definitely be a game-changer.

Interesting bit of what-if?: What if the techno-optimist s and cornucopians are half right? Then we'll only be half screwed? Or screwed x 1.5.

Mos the anti-nukes on this board can't hear you, we have been over this ground over and over and they keep coming back with the same misstatements, faulty 'facts' and outright lies. They do not care about reality, they only care about their agenda.

In this respect I'm a bit more cynical even if fusion power is perfected I think something else will limit earth's "carrying capacity" to sustain human life. Don't get me wrong fusion energy would be a great development but at some point we still reach some sort of "hard ceiling" on our standard of living or our numbers, or probably both.

Although I do believe peak oil is real I think we will probably have a sudden catastrophic collapse that will depopulate the planet below maximum carrying capacity. This ironically may enable those who survive to enjoy a standard of living that we have grown accustomed.

Tesla worked within existing physical theory for his inventions, whereas it seems that theory will have to be expanded substantially in order to make fusion power viable, too much for one individual to accomplish to the complete suprise of the entire scientific community, IMO. That's why I think the 100 year time frame seems reasonable.

Yeah, so much money being spent on Fusion R&D. Iter is more like Heavy industry welfare. The money being spent on this research is a joke.

Fusion (Magnetic containment) has a primary problem of scalability. At current materials technology it would have to be huge to work properly. There is no serious attempt at making this work. How much is the defense budget? At least 500 billion/year? What is the total amount of money ever spent on fusion research? Five Billion? How much of it is weapons related (NOVA)?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Contrary to popular opinion, throwing more money at a problem doesn't insure success. For instance, where's my flying car?



These things have to be feasible from the aspect of physics and materials science otherwise don't even bother trying.

Better than powerdown? We have to powerdown. There is no alternative. I think what you mean is that it might enable BAU for as long as you care to consider.

But, then again, it might not. Fission is unsustainable, so why lumber the human race with yet another unsustainable energy source? Fusion has been the dream of many, I think, to try to get (apparently) unlimited energy, which is needed to keep acting out the unending growth fantasy. However, it may be 100 years away - far too late to make a difference in an era of probably dwindling energy supplies. Fission is also a dream for many. Notice how the dream discards the current designs, including those on the drawing board? This is because the fantasy can't be maintained by current designs and fuel source.

Powering down will be forced on us, if we don't figure it out for ourselves.

Lithium and boron? How much of that stuff is there, and how easy is it to produce?

There are actually volumes of experimental data that point to what are known as low energy nuclear reactions occuring under certain circumstances - much of the problems arise from accepted theories not accounting for the observations of energy being accounted for. To throw another wrench into the works, NASA recently performed an experiment which proved that the simple act of charging an asymetrical capcitor causes acceleration within the electrostatic feild. Warp drive anyone? A major problem here, and possibly as mentioned above along the lines of unknown constraints, is that we are outgrowing our working theory of the universe. We have rules that hold true 99.9% of the time, but that unexplainable .1% we're starting to dig further into really means that while our theories and models may work, they aren't complete.

Trichel pulses that result from asymmetrical capacitors most likely are bleeding out of the capacitor and the charged ions are interacting with the atoms in the surrounding atmosphere (since in the vaccuum inside the capacitor this would not cause thrust) and is this interaction which probably causes thrust.

This doesn't seem particularly efficient in an Earth atmosphere, and would probably be less efficient in space which has much less molecules.

What about the Flux Capacitor!?

Tony, Just reporting what has been published in the news. I would like this tech to work but there is no guarantee that it will at any of the 3 sites (UK, France and California) that I know about. I will maintain an interest in announcements.

Nuclear fusion power project to start in 2018: official



physorg

I'd like it to work, also, Graeme. But, with a fully operational ITER at least 17 years away and a commercial reactor maybe 50 years away, if at all, it seems like a waste of resources to me. A kind of fanciful dream. We should be concentrating on reworking society for a sustainable future. I suspect even the inflated figure of $16 billion will rise further. Tens of billions could be better spent elsewhere, I feel sure.