Nuclear Fusion

if they found a way of using our breath to make leccy, mine and your bills would only be £1 cheaper than what we have now.

the best way is to go 1850’s power and horse transport
😜
 
Great thing with fusion is that it would produce no greenhouse gases and only very small amounts of short-lived radioactive waste.
 
'The UK is a participant, too. Its full involvement in ITER, however, will require first for Britain to "associate" to certain EU science programmes, something that so far has been held up by disagreements over post-Brexit trading arrangements, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland.'

:mad: :mad: :mad:

We warned about this. UK Science benefited massively from our EU membership. We had no need to leave the various EU schemes even with Brexit. We chose to and it was ideological, in fact pathological, because anything connected to the EU just had to be bad and left, in these stupid stupid peoples eyes.
 
This is why I'm not rushing out to buy an electric car as I'm waiting for delivery of my fusion car that I ordered in 1985.
 
Fusion has to be part of the energy future surely? If we can get it to work. I know it isn't "sustainable" but amount of energy released over fuel in is so high as to be practically so
 
Fusion is a way forward but I was knocked back when the European engineer said its on course for use in 2050 - it will be a bit late then, we need a lot more non carbon electricity for 2030.

Fusion has been well known as as energy source since the 1970s - 45 years on we managed to create enough to power 10 kettles.
 
Redwurzel said:
Fusion is a way forward but I was knocked back when the European engineer said its on course for use in 2050 - it will be a bit late then, we need a lot more non carbon electricity for 2030.

Fusion has been well known as as energy source since the 1970s - 45 years on we managed to create enough to power 10 kettles.
Click to expand...
I think this was just a small time demonstration of the tech though, and now they know this works, it can be scaled up very easily (well, easy for those guys, compared to what they've already solved).

Big day today in world energy, and hopefully they can fast track some of the testing and production to get there ASAP, as we're going to need it.
 
Had not heard they are aiming for 2050, that would be a shame as we need it soon to get rid of dependency on hydrocarbons
 
Redwurzel said:
Fusion is a way forward but I was knocked back when the European engineer said its on course for use in 2050 - it will be a bit late then, we need a lot more non carbon electricity for 2030.

Fusion has been well known as as energy source since the 1970s - 45 years on we managed to create enough to power 10 kettles.
Click to expand...
There are still a couple of problems to resolve. The amount of power the magnets takes to contain the plasma is the biggest one. A test in the USA produces millions of kilowatts of energy in a tenth of a second that they could sustain the reaction for. The system produces a lot of energy, it just takes a similar amount of energy to sustain the reaction.

I used to have this debate with bear on a regular basis. We are pretty close to fusion now. It may be 2050 before we have commercially viable reactors but we will have sustainable fusion long before then.

Its biggest advantage isn't that it is green but that it is, almost, free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top