Only Two Years to Practical Nuclear Fusion?

TheAntiDoomer · **Joined:** Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 575

http://pennysleuth.com/only-two-years-t ... ar-fusion/

Quote:

Energy is today’s hot topic. With concerns over the rising prices of oil – and the lack of feasibility of many of the other alternatives on the table – consumers want a cheap energy solution that will last the generations ahead of us. One company is on the cusp of doing just that, and could turn its small group of investors into billionaires…

I’ve discussed before how transformative commercially competitive nuclear fusion would be. Clean and inexpensive fusion would completely disrupt the foundation of the global economy: energy. We don’t, in fact, know that it can be done. It looks like it, but there are many unknowns, and the timeline is even more obscure. The impact would be so profound, however, that we have to keep track of developments.

rangerone314 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:11 am

TheAntiDoomer wrote:

http://pennysleuth.com/only-two-years-to-practical-nuclear-fusion/

Quote:

Energy is today’s hot topic. With concerns over the rising prices of oil – and the lack of feasibility of many of the other alternatives on the table – consumers want a cheap energy solution that will last the generations ahead of us. One company is on the cusp of doing just that, and could turn its small group of investors into billionaires…

I’ve discussed before how transformative commercially competitive nuclear fusion would be. Clean and inexpensive fusion would completely disrupt the foundation of the global economy: energy. We don’t, in fact, know that it can be done. It looks like it, but there are many unknowns, and the timeline is even more obscure. The impact would be so profound, however, that we have to keep track of developments.

I'd be ticked pink if it worked, but I won't hold my breath.

Maybe I should start a company to "research" fusion, and see how many people I can dupe, err convince to invest in it.

Pops · **Posted:** Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:35 am

Ha Ha!

Check out some of the other headlines brought to you by the same fine folks at Agora
Nothing’s Over: The Top Reason GDP Does Not Show Recovery
Bear Market Shows Its Face, Brazilian Warning, GDP Surprise, Global Demographics and More!
Economic Collapse Permanently Destroys Middle Class Jobs

Whiskey and Gunpowder? I wouldn't have thought those were your type of sites AD, are you toying with us?

kublikhan · **Posted:** Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:50 am

Not 2 years to practical nuclear fusion. 2 years to the completion of their latest prototype, the WB-8. At which point, it would join the other tiny prototype Polywell reactors: Polywell

Assuming everything pans out, they will then build another prototype reactor, this time full size, which will take another 4-6 years. Granted, a 6-8 year projection to get a full scale fusion demonstration plant operational is alot better than "fusion is always 50 years away", but even that is not a functioning commercial reactor.

Pretorian · **Posted:** Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:04 pm

Ok, so we do this fusiion thing and then what? Only Three Years to Practical Mercury Filter? Only Five Years to Practical Personal Gas Masks? What?

ian807 · **Joined:** Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:00 am **Posts:** 254

Of course it's two years until practical nuclear fusion. Has been since the sixties and it always will be.

Tradition!

evilgenius · **Posted:** Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:23 am

Given the time scale of the actual last nail in the coffin of the oil age, what forty to sixty years, fusion makes sense. In the meantime it would be faster to develop carbon nanotubes and run them up to space a la the space elevator concept, using them as conductors to facilitate the flow of electrons from space to earth. Both projects would take a long time. Meanwhile using the military will be more tempting to most politicians.

ian807 · **Joined:** Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:00 am **Posts:** 254

evilgenius wrote:

... it would be faster to develop carbon nanotubes and run them up to space a la the space elevator concept, using them as conductors to facilitate the flow of electrons from space to earth.

Um, we can't even come close to creating that many carbon nanotubes even if any entity on earth could finance it at current prices. We don't have the structural technology to make such a thing stand up during the construction phase, and oh, yes, such a thing would be just a *wee* difficult to defend from the first terrorist nutbar that wanders along. Assuming it would work. Voltage potential is one thing. Usable energy is another. Efficiency matters. When you get an energy positive prototype in your backyard, let us know.

Space based power would be cheaper, or geothermal, or just about anything with an EREOI > 1. Sounds like someone has been reading too much sci-fi with a little too little engineering/economic sense.

neocone · **Joined:** Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:00 am **Posts:** 307

"Just around the corner"
"Only 2 more years... if not months"
....

Since when? 1950 or so???

Up there with practical fuel cells... and strangely same EROI... 30% or so...

evilgenius · **Posted:** Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:16 am

ian807 wrote:

evilgenius wrote:

... it would be faster to develop carbon nanotubes and run them up to space a la the space elevator concept, using them as conductors to facilitate the flow of electrons from space to earth.

Um, we can't even come close to creating that many carbon nanotubes even if any entity on earth could finance it at current prices. We don't have the structural technology to make such a thing stand up during the construction phase, and oh, yes, such a thing would be just a *wee* difficult to defend from the first terrorist nutbar that wanders along. Assuming it would work. Voltage potential is one thing. Usable energy is another. Efficiency matters. When you get an energy positive prototype in your backyard, let us know.

Space based power would be cheaper, or geothermal, or just about anything with an EREOI > 1. Sounds like someone has been reading too much sci-fi with a little too little engineering/economic sense.

That's the whole point. Fusion will come as easily. It's a joke!

SoothSayer · **Posted:** Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:54 am

The search for fusion has been going on for FIFTY years.

GSM, GPS, PCs, the Web, genetic sequencing etc have taken way less than that with far more success.

The search for fusion may have started off with honest intentions, back in the 1950s.

Now it's just an institution: a lifetime job alternative to the dole for Grade B physicists and their managers.

I suspect that if the whole nest of the managers, hangers on, and so-called scientists were thrown onto the street, and the money given to Sun or Microsoft then maybe we might start to see results.

The private sector could select the best of the current fusion people, and add in some bright keen minds.

This could result in rather more progress than we have seen to date.

sparky · **Joined:** Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:00 am **Posts:** 378

.

Fusion is definitely on the far horizon ,
much more practical is the push toward partial breeder technology ,
all nuclear plant have some marginal plutonium fast breeding anyway
that should get us the fifty years to get a practical fusion reactor with a positive energy balance

getting fusion is not a solution until one can power a tea kettle on the grid with it .

the theoretical background is minimal and the tech development exactly zero

.

rangerone314 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:43 am

Only two years?

I already have a fusion power generator in my basement. If you want to invest in my company, I'm sure I can get listed on the OTC pink sheets, LOL.

If you are interested, I have a perpetual motion machine and a full-proof way of storing nuclear waste.

Only Two Years to Practical Nuclear Fusion?

Who is online