A Working Nuclear Fusion Reactor In Three Years? Really? - Forbes
Recent developments with this. It seems too good to be true. Is it?
Recent developments with this. It seems too good to be true. Is it?
Nuclear fusion
- Thread starter rainforests1
- Start date
Blobbenstein
.......
It's a nice thought. That writer doesn't seem very optimistic about Lockheed Martin's prospects, though. I hope someone is able to make a break-through, but for all I know, in the fullness of time, it may turn out that fusion power wasn't really possible.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
I've always wanted be alive during a period in the future when fossil fuels become irrelevant.
If this is successful, I might actually live to see oil becoming, at least, less relevant.
If this is successful, I might actually live to see oil becoming, at least, less relevant.
Last edited:
Wouldn't natural gas, coal, and renewable companies fight this? What would it do regarding jobs? If you could find cheap energy sources income inequality would become less of a problem, but the birth rate would rise. I can still see some problems.
I would think Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other oil exporters would collapse in this case.
Blobbenstein
.......
yakherder
老外
Even if we had the option to start building them tomorrow, changing the infrastructure of the entire world is costly and can't happen overnight, and we're reliant on petroleum for a lot more than energy production.
Fossil fuels would, best case scenario, be phased out rather than becoming immediately obsolete.
And the oil companies aren't as much the problem as people would like to think. If the cleanest and most abundant source of energy is not the cheapest, there will still be a demand for alternatives. Coal has long been obsolete, yet it still provodes almost half the energy of the U.S. and 65% to 70% of China's. The reality is that even oil can't meet our needs. Not even close. And when better tech does come along, the upgrade from obsolete but working infrastructure to new and better things is not a realistic investment.
Anyone feel like paying 85% income tax for the next 30 years and being at war for most of it? Because maintaining the resource flow to support our needs is no simple undertaking. Getting rid of oil dependency, if we can, won't change that.
Fossil fuels would, best case scenario, be phased out rather than becoming immediately obsolete.
And the oil companies aren't as much the problem as people would like to think. If the cleanest and most abundant source of energy is not the cheapest, there will still be a demand for alternatives. Coal has long been obsolete, yet it still provodes almost half the energy of the U.S. and 65% to 70% of China's. The reality is that even oil can't meet our needs. Not even close. And when better tech does come along, the upgrade from obsolete but working infrastructure to new and better things is not a realistic investment.
Anyone feel like paying 85% income tax for the next 30 years and being at war for most of it? Because maintaining the resource flow to support our needs is no simple undertaking. Getting rid of oil dependency, if we can, won't change that.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
85% for 30 years? Do you have a source for that?
I know it would be gradual, and would be implemented on a state by state basis, and only by those states that wanted to invest in it.
The long term return on investment is potentially huge, and we would be fools not to invest in fusion. Just imagine not being held hostage by ever increasing oil prices, and the whims of oil rich countries. Imagine looking toward the Middle East and seeing sand, not oil. It's a future worth contemplating (and considering).
If you found a cheap alternative to energy and oil, people would have a lot more money to spend. When the recession hit, the birth rate dropped. This has happened in other places as well. Children are very expensive. I'm not a fan of income inequality in general, but it does have one benefit.
yakherder
老外
No source, just an off the cuff remark, the point being that even alternatives that are way cheaper overall still require astronomical investments to reach the point where we're saving.
Blobbenstein
.......
if they could be made small enough, then you could have one in your house. Rich buy the first, price comes down..
It would be weird for each house to have it's own power station; all it needed was tap water.
It would be weird for each house to have it's own power station; all it needed was tap water.
yakherder
老外
Most major investments initiate from a bank loan, and many bank loans initiate from government loans, i.e. your taxes.
Seems like commercial nuclear fusion at ITER is still a long time away:
