Fusion has for decades been heralded as the solution to our global energy problems. Its clean, safe and has an enormously abundant fuel supply (so they say). And given the recent ITER annoucement and funding injection, fusion will be with us in........................ 30 years!!!!!!!!!!!
Given Sir Nicholas Stern's LSE presentation on not going green, why are we not throwing everything we have at this problem and cracking this thing in 10 years rather than 30?????
2006-11-26 10:28:40 · 5 answers · asked by Moebious 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
No - we've been doing fusion research for a long time. The ITAR test device JET has managed to crack most of the problems that needed be cracked before we ploughed big money into the project. There are also some side development that have helped, like improved computing power to control the field shape and strength needed to control the plasma plus High Temperature superconductors.
2006-11-26 20:43:46 · answer #1 · answered by Mark G 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't make a baby in one month by putting 9 men on it.
Practical fusion energy is one tough nut, and I think it's premature to down-select your investments into any one possible solution like the Tokamak geometry of ITER. The investment is ITER is appropriate, but there are alternative concepts that should be funded better than they are. As far as real money is concerned, though, ITER is pronounced "Eater"
Fusion energy has actually been about "30 years away" since the early 1950's. The only reason researchers claim "30 years" is because they know that funding agencies don't give a damn about *anything* much more than 30 years in the future. Fusion is a promising energy source for the very long term, but I'm afraid we're probably going to have to muddle through most, if not all, of the 21st century without it being a major player.
2006-11-26 19:23:10 · answer #2 · answered by Dr. R 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it is a good amount of money, but as you said a little too late in the game. Fusion and fission of atoms are potentially the energy source of the future. My question is, why are the not the energy source of today. They would create yodawatts a year of energy( potentially shorter time span once safer methods of fusion and fission are developed more), yet they are discarded for less effective, more damaging, primitive methods.
2006-11-26 18:37:18 · answer #3 · answered by Professor Sheed 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just thought I'd let you know that they're spending US$12.1 billion! Its a lot of money which is being thrown at a project that has the potential to be a failure. I still think that this huge amount of money could have been spent on renewables, which for the most part are tried and tested. Also, consider the global impact of an accident occurring in sleepy southern France, it would be like dozens of Chernobyls all rolled in to one.
At the end of the day we can never quench our thirst for energy, were better off trying to save it. Nuclear fusion will not quench the thirst, thats for sure.
2006-11-26 18:45:12 · answer #4 · answered by Mr Slug 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Possibly not too little, definitely too late
2006-11-27 11:24:15 · answer #5 · answered by lulu 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋