Re: Nukes answer to post-oil world?

From: quasarstrider (quasarstrider_at_yahoo.com.br)
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: 25 Nov 2004 11:18:32 -0800

"James" <jrapier@dcr.net> wrote in message news:<OQTod.17$Uq3.10@fe39.usenetserver.com>...
> Fusion energy was promised by the year 2000 back in the 60s and 70s.
> Probably lots of tokamaks rusting out there.

Fusion energy has been 20 years away since the 1950s. Some mock that this
means Fusion energy is the energy of the future and will always be.

I think we will achieve net positive energy out of man-made generators
eventually, but the costs and density of tokamaks and *cough* stellarators
are abysmal. ICF has the problem of being pulsed instead of continuous (not
very nice if you want something to feed the power grid).

If its Nuclear energy you want, nothing beats Fission. If its cheap Fusion
you are interested in, just use that giant reactor we got for free with
zero maintenance costs called the Sun.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nukes answer to post-oil world?
    ... > Probably lots of tokamaks rusting out there. ... Fusion energy has been 20 years away since the 1950s. ... zero maintenance costs called the Sun. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: OT: Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
    ... vegetation grows in the shade of solar panels). ... greenhouse negative for at least 3 years, because of the energy required ... Far better to use secondary effects like wind and tide generators ... type effort to develop fusion energy, then we'll be done with energy ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)