Well, it has been 60+ years since we split the atom, and nuclear power is in the doldrums…it is seen as too expensive and too dangerous. yet, clearly the earth is running out of fossil fuesl, and we need a clean source of energy. Solar and wind, hydeoelectric arent going to do it…so what’s the story with FUSION reactors? Every time you read about it, some physiscist makes the prediction that it (fusion) is just 25 year’s away…so what’s the truth?
Is fusion ever going to work, or should we accept the inevitable, that the technology is too complex for us to master. To me, the engineering problems seem almost beyond solution…is it time to say goodby to the dream?
Nuclear (fission, I assume) power is in the doldrums? When did that happen?
Anyhoo, fusion projects are ongoing and though the technical challenges are considerable, I see no reason to embrace your pessimism. Powered flight, for example, kicked around experimentally for decades before a major impetus (i.e. World War One) put oodles of money into research and improvement.
As the fossil fuels slowly become scarcer, their prices will rise and fusion will get an investment boost. I hope to see it my lifetime, but I won’t get depressed if I don’t.
There’s no real reason to develope fusion right now. We’ve still got a lot of fossil fuel, and the effiency of it’s use is growing all the time. So is the use of alternative fuels, like it or not.
The only real advantage of nuclear (fission of fusion) power is it’s compactness. Hence it’s use in submarines and spacecraft etc.
Fusion is a cool, kinda futuristic, idea though.
Peace,
mangeorge
But let’s not forget the lack of combustion products, including greenhouse gasses. That, alone, makes nuclear worth the price of admission.
It seems as if fusion explosives are (relatively) ridiculously easy to build, and controlled fusion ridiculously difficult. Would that it were the other way around.
I say within my lifetime. I’m 18. As I understand it, research is progressing all the time, just not as light speed so to speak. When I visited University of Maryland they were doing alot of plasma research that was related to fusion. Slowly, little bit by little bit, we’re overcoming the engineering problems. Personally, I think the high energy yield and low waste problems are a pretty good backign for fusion.
I would beg to differ, although I guess it depends on how you define a “lot”. Will it run out in our generation? No. In our children’s? Probably not. In our grandchildren’s? shrug
Even taking into account new technologies (increased efficiency) and newly discovered oil deposits, the most optimistic estimations say we have around 200 years of oil left. The most pessimistic - 70. I find it very hard to believe, but I’ve read it in many credible places. I’ll try to find a few sources tonight if I can.
So far this has been the exact truth. And it’s just as true today as it ever eas.
We don’t really differ, hobbes730. I’ve read, and believe, 40-200 years. Not that different. But the corporate long look is what, five years? Many investors won’t look ahead more than 1 or 2 years, let alone 40 (or 70).
Last I read Sandia National Laboratories came closest, achieving 290 terawatts, 1.6 million degrees (capable of heating a Lean Cuisine in .00001 seconds). The theory is currently that 2 to 3 million degrees will be required to get a sustained reaction. Regardless, that picture of the energy spill arcing over the oil bath is pretty cool.
In order to get a sustained funding reaction, the energy output of the news releases must sustain a political reaction over 4 years, with a projected breakeven output at 30 years.
That formula has worked for decades.
It just seems odd to me that a technology that could solve as many problems as fusion would has recieved so little priority.
Go for it, Sock Munkey. 
From the Sandia site:
“The most recent advance resulted in an output X-ray power of about 290 trillion watts – for billionths of a second, about 80 times the entire world’s output of electricity.”
Kinda misleading, seems to me it was more like 290 watts or so of actual power. (dependant upon how many actual billionths of a second that lasted). That being said, my guess is that there will be actuall commercial grade production nuclear fusion energy in about 40 years or so.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but power does not depend upon the time involved.
If it runs at 290 terawatts, then it runs at that whether it be for 1 second or 20 years.
Sorry for the nitpick.
I believe there is an experimental reactor in the planning stages to be built in the next few years.
-Oli.
My neck of the woods here in Canada (due north of Rochester) is in the running to build the world’s first test fusion reactor. So are Spain, Japan, and some other places. The following website might answer your questions about how close we are to fusion power:
No they’re right, Watts are J/s. So they produced, say, 290 J of energy during 1 nanosecond, which gives a total power output of 290 Terawatts.
And there is focus on fusion. Everything from the classic tokomak’s (doughnut shaped) to pulsed laser configurations. It’s just big, complicated and there’s no screaming need for it yet.