Fusion power with the tokamak design holds the potential to supply our electric needs. Asia and europe are working toward a commercial version.
If we continue to use this much electricity, we need a source that does not emit the carbon.
2007-07-01 16:50:07 · 9 answers · asked by heinsight 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
As soon as we have a practical working model. The technology is not there yet.
2007-07-01 16:54:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
1) What would be the cost of not replacing nuclear power facilities in terms of the electricity bills ordinary people pay 20 years from now? Would enough people vote for that? 2) Given that the nuclear power option remains on the table, are there sufficient natural resources of raidioactive elements, or will it run short and become very expensive and under hostile foreign control like oil? 3) If society becomes more turbulent and law and order becomes too expensive to maintain at present level, what is the danger of being unable to adequately protect nuclear plants and waste dumps? 4) Might Science actually get around to making a workable Fusion Reactor. If so when, at what cost, and at what level of danger? 5) Which renewable power sources are actually viable? I mean wind-power needs to be captured continent-wide in order to even out periods when the wind doesn't blow, and it is very expensive to transmit long distances without too much loss. 6) When all these electric cars come on the roads (taking at least half an hour to re-charge), what other than nuclear power could supply enough electricty to keep up with demand?
2016-05-21 00:09:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A better question is why we are not considering 'thorium' reactors?
"What if we could build a nuclear reactor that offered no possibility of a meltdown, generated its power inexpensively, created no weapons-grade by-products, and burnt up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles? And what if the waste produced by such a reactor was radioactive for a mere few hundred years rather than tens of thousands? It may sound too good to be true, but such a reactor is indeed possible, and a number of teams around the world are now working to make it a reality. What makes this incredible reactor so different is its fuel source: thorium."
2007-07-02 05:36:39 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Wizard 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry to burst your bubble but it just isn't anything but a gigantic money sink! There is no way this design can be reduced to a practical workable package without some real break through. Zero point energy holds far more promise. It also could be suitable for packaging small enough and cheap enough to be useful for powering individual homes and cars! This is where all the research money should be going! Understand the monopoly men are fighting this technology tooth and nail!
Somehow I enjoy kicking sacred cows!
2007-07-01 17:31:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We haven't broken past the Nuclear Age yet. What makes you think we're ready to start dipping into Fusion?
2007-07-01 17:00:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should have been using the power of fusion for a long
time. Solar is the answer.
2007-07-01 17:06:52 · answer #6 · answered by JF 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would be a great idea, first you have to get the Dems to let go of their fear of anything resembling Atomic power.
2007-07-01 17:00:03 · answer #7 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We would have to invent it first - there you go summer project for you.
2007-07-01 17:44:33 · answer #8 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not as long as oil companies are raking in record billions in profits....
2007-07-01 17:00:15 · answer #9 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋