Fusion. the way the sun gets power. it could mean cheap energy for all. or could it mean a way of war almost to horrible to imagine? the awsume power could be transfered into a laser, where it is only a matter of how much enrgy it gets, or just realsing it itself would be a nasty weapon. your opinion?
the end of power shortage
or the end of us?

not crazy, just catious

Fusion. the way the sun gets power. it could mean cheap energy for all. or could it mean a way of war almost to horrible to imagine? the awsume power could be transfered into a laser, where it is only a matter of how much enrgy it gets, or just realsing it itself would be a nasty weapon. your opinion?
the end of power shortage
or the end of us?

not crazy, just catious

You can forget your laser - why bother? Fusion bombs/missles have been around for a VERY long time and just a single one of them can cause FAR more damage than hundreds or thousands of your lasers!

I voted "savior" because fusion indeed will be what can release the world from it's dependence on fossil fuels.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15043462/

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060928/060928_chinafusion_hmed_11a.hmedium.jpg

BEIJING - Scientists on Thursday carried out China's first successful test of an experimental fusion reactor, powered by the process that fuels the sun, a research institute spokeswoman said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15043462/

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060928/060928_chinafusion_hmed_11a.hmedium.jpg

That's not really a big deal. America and Europe have been working with tokamaks for decades. It only shows that China is trying to catch up. So far, no one has been able to reach the break-even mark.

Fusion. the way the sun gets power. it could mean cheap energy for all. or could it mean a way of war almost to horrible to imagine? the awsume power could be transfered into a laser, where it is only a matter of how much enrgy it gets
As Read mentioned, we've had fusion bombs for quite some time. Lasers probably aren't that great a weapon in an atmosphere, anyway. They won't work well in bad weather (rain, snow, steam, whatever can attenuate the laser). Whereas thermonuclear weapons work in any climate!

As Read mentioned, we've had fusion bombs for quite some time. Lasers probably aren't that great a weapon in an atmosphere, anyway. They won't work well in bad weather (rain, snow, steam, whatever can attenuate the laser). Whereas thermonuclear weapons work in any climate!

Also lasers can be easily defeated with mirrors.

Fusion. the way the sun gets power. it could mean cheap energy for all. or could it mean a way of war almost to horrible to imagine? the awsume power could be transfered into a laser, where it is only a matter of how much enrgy it gets, or just realsing it itself would be a nasty weapon. your opinion?
the end of power shortage
or the end of us?

not crazy, just catious

Over 3 trillion dollars has been spent on fusion research with no one ever having a break even reaction as yet. We should really look at a cheap way to split water molecules and get the hydrogen out of water because if that could be accomplished we wouldn't need a fusion reactor at all and we would have all the renewable energy we need! Fusion reactors are still going to produce radioactive waste so just because fusion might work we will still have to deal with that problem as well.

Over 3 trillion dollars has been spent on fusion research with no one ever having a break even reaction as yet. We should really look at a cheap way to split water molecules and get the hydrogen out of water because if that could be accomplished we wouldn't need a fusion reactor at all and we would have all the renewable energy we need! Fusion reactors are still going to produce radioactive waste so just because fusion might work we will still have to deal with that problem as well.

While that last statement is correct, the volume produced is tiny compared to conventional fission.

And as to a "cheap" way to split water, energy out equals energy in minus losses. There's just no way around it.

Fusion reactors are still going to produce radioactive waste so just because fusion might work we will still have to deal with that problem as well.

Plus, the radioactive by-products have half-lives on the order of tens of years, not tens of thousands of years. So technically, you could dump the byproducts down a mine shaft and not have to worry about things like continental drift.

While that last statement is correct, the volume produced is tiny compared to conventional fission.

And as to a "cheap" way to split water, energy out equals energy in minus losses. There's just no way around it.

But with advances in photovoltaics, algae used in producing hydrogen. wind turbines that create electricity to split the water I'd think that it could be done.

Fusion. the way the sun gets power. it could mean cheap energy for all. or could it mean a way of war almost to horrible to imagine? the awsume power could be transfered into a laser, where it is only a matter of how much enrgy it gets, or just realsing it itself would be a nasty weapon. your opinion?
the end of power shortage
or the end of us?

not crazy, just catious
I hate to break it to you, but we already have fusion weapons. Now it would be nice to get some free electricity out of the deal as well.

Also lasers can be easily defeated with mirrors.
The slightest imperfection on that mirror (like, say, soot particles from the air) will make it a useless defense against a laser weapon.

And is this really news? Any technology can be used for destruction. Fusion will probably reduce war over oil and fossil fuels, which are localised resources.

Over 3 trillion dollars has been spent on fusion research with no one ever having a break even reaction as yet. We should really look at a cheap way to split water molecules and get the hydrogen out of water because if that could be accomplished we wouldn't need a fusion reactor at all and we would have all the renewable energy we need! Fusion reactors are still going to produce radioactive waste so just because fusion might work we will still have to deal with that problem as well.

The trillions of dollars has mostly gone into Tokomaks though, not as much has been spent on some of the other concepts such as electrostatic confinement or pulse plasma fusion, to name but a few of many (and I'm probably not giving them their proper names now that I think about it).

Splitting hydrogen out of water is the reverse of burning the hydrogen INTO water, and thus it is an energy-storage medium in that you need to put energy into the creation of hydrogen (or you break down natural gas, which really doesn't solve much...) in order to get the energy back out of it by combusting it. Hydrogen would be a great fuel for vehicles and such, but another clean power source needs to actually produce the hydrogen, it's not like fossil fuels where we can just slurp it out of the ground.

Fusion reactors would make waste, but not nearly as much, and it's half-life is not nearly as long. In fact, there's a Boron-hydrogen (i think it's hydrogen) fusion reaction that while it needs higher temperatures than what most are trying to achieve now, it yields no neutron radiation (which is notoriously hard to shield compared to gamma rays, and gamma itself are though to shield), and the half-life of it's products and side-products is such that the radiation of the waste is virtually gone after about 9 hours. Shut a reactor down for a work-shift's length of time, and one could open up the reactor and waltz in without a radiation suit or anything!

I do wonder about if an energy balance shift could lead to war, but then again, we can't blame the technology for our short-commings. Any technology is but a tool which we people can use for good or evil. A pen can send millions to death or save millions. A gun can kill a good man or it can help stop a bad man.

Either way, the fact that nobody's been stupid enough to spark a nuclear war gives me some confidence in our ability to control our itchy trigger fingers :)

Over 3 trillion dollars has been spent on fusion research with no one ever having a break even reaction as yet. We should really look at a cheap way to split water molecules and get the hydrogen out of water because if that could be accomplished we wouldn't need a fusion reactor at all and we would have all the renewable energy we need!

Anyone who calls for using hydrogen from water as an energy SOURCE clearly does not understand the first law of thermodynamics.

Anyone who calls for using hydrogen from water as an energy SOURCE clearly does not understand the first law of thermodynamics.

It is easier to extract hydrogen from petroleum in actuality. That is what we are trying to reduce in this environment though. As I stated , sunlight, wind and other natural things can help in extracting the hydrogen from water even though it is more difficult it is much cleaner.

But with advances in photovoltaics, algae used in producing hydrogen. wind turbines that create electricity to split the water I'd think that it could be done.

Why bother? Why not just use electricity from sunlight and wind directly? Hydrogen from water is nothing more than energy STORAGE -- and lousy one at that, because of its bulk and very low boiling temperature. If we need to store electric energy in chemically useful form (and I think we will need that -- you can't run wires everywhere), it is much better to use electricity to synthesize alcohol out of water and CO2. Alcohol is safer to use and MUCH easier to store than hydrogen.

Why bother? Why not just use electricity from sunlight and wind directly? Hydrogen from water is nothing more than energy STORAGE -- and lousy one at that, because of its bulk and very low boiling temperature. If we need to store electric energy in chemically useful form (and I think we will need that -- you can't run wires everywhere), it is much better to use electricity to synthesize alcohol out of water and CO2. Alcohol is safer to use and MUCH easier to store than hydrogen.

I agree with you but try running a semi tractor truck on sunlight or wind. Or a train matter of fact. You need some type of storage energy source to power large heavy things, there's no way around it unless you use a nuclear reactor on-board , like a RPU on-board spacecraft, but that wouldn't be to prudent now would it.

Why bother? Why not just use electricity from sunlight and wind directly? Hydrogen from water is nothing more than energy STORAGE -- and lousy one at that, because of its bulk and very low boiling temperature. If we need to store electric energy in chemically useful form (and I think we will need that -- you can't run wires everywhere), it is much better to use electricity to synthesize alcohol out of water and CO2. Alcohol is safer to use and MUCH easier to store than hydrogen.

Very true, even considering metal hydride storage.

The world is slowly, slowly catching on to the fact that a hydrogen-powered anything was never more than just a pipe dream created by well-meaning but not fully-educated non-technical people. A few brave scientists spoke out against it early but their voices were drowned out by all the hype and the people who THOUGHT they knew what they were talking about.

Even things like using PV to create it are simply products of wrong thinking due to the losses involved in the energy conversion steps. But those without real knowledge of the technical aspects of that simply refuse to accept the truth.