digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at ecogeek.org —

Fusion Power in the Next Five Years!

ecogeek.org — A prominent venture capitalist, Wal van Lierop, of Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, has begun to invest in companies (such as General Fusion) who are providing patents and technologies for economical fusion power.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • BigManOnCampus, on 02/12/2008, -13/+41Greenpeace will whine about the waste. I'll be sure and tell them in a high-pitched-voice how clean it is.
    • tonicboy, on 02/12/2008, -3/+38Come on now, give them a little credit. Even the environmentalists are on-board with fusion because if how clean it is. Hell, for the most part, they're even on-board with fission because it's still cleaner than coal.
      • KraftDinner101, on 02/12/2008, -5/+26Until Greenpeace admits that genetically engineered crops are fine to eat and have in fact saved millions (perhaps a billion?) of people, I will forever have no respect for them.
        • noahhoward, on 02/12/2008, -6/+5I don't know whether they are fine to eat or not but I do know they can be dangerous if they get out of hand.
          • moskaudancer, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2That can be said about *any* new technology. It's not particular to GM crops.
          • Awspire, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3I cant wait till they grow a carrot with its own onion dip filling.
          • BigManOnCampus, on 02/12/2008, -3/+4It is very silly to be afraid to use new technology simply because we don't understand every possible negative consequence. All progress includes risk. If the inventor of the wheel had to endure visualization of every fatal automobile accident that ever occurred as a result of his invention... we would still be barefoot and speaking in grunts.
          • allywilson, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1"...they can be dangerous if they get out of hand." What? Get out of hand how?
          • laserdog, on 02/12/2008, -2/+4"What? Get out of hand how?"

            Unexpectedly kill honey bees (probably not the cause this time)

            Introduce new, untested proteins into the human system.

            Spread themselves to other non-GM farms, forcing that farm out of business due to licensing costs (has already happened).

            At it's core, if a corporation could get away with any of the above, and make a 1 cent higher profit, they'd do it.

            The worry is that they will pass a greater cost onto the rest of us to bear for it.
          • KraftDinner101, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1The thing is, GM crop have been around for decades now. Billions eat it worldwide. If you don't specifically buy organic, you're most likely eating a GM crop. You're not going to change your genetic code, you're not going to sprout another head and you're certainly not going to be harmed by it.
      • norman619, on 02/12/2008, -5/+9Sure they are. It's nuculur. That means evil. That's all I ever hear from those clowns.
        • EXreaction, on 02/12/2008, -2/+5I think that is the worst spelling of nuclear I've ever seen.
          • vertigoacid, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2:whoosh:

            Say it out loud, and you'll get it
      • dromni, on 02/12/2008, -4/+6BigManOnCampus was talking about Greenpeace, and Greenpeace seems dogmatically anti-nuclear as far as I can see. Right now they are whinning about the breeder reactor on France because they say that it will "estimulate nuclear proliferation". And yes, since the argument of "nuclear waste will poison Earth" does not work anymore, they are copying neocon rethoric.
      • dafragsta, on 02/12/2008, -3/+4Greenpeace != environmentalists just as peta != animal lovers.

        The thing about America is this: if a special interest lays claim to some hard earned self righteousness, someone will ***** it up by using it as an excuse to be a complete ***** while hiding behind that self righteousness. Peta and Greenpeace are notorious for that.
        • BigManOnCampus, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Agreed. Greenpeace != environmentalists. I was simply making a joke at extremists expense.
    • Happy_Phantom, on 02/12/2008, -1/+11Did you catch this part of the article:

      "The heat captured is significantly greater than the energy used to run the device and the only byproduct is helium and other harmless gasses."
      • RealmDown, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Yep. Very exciting. I don't see anything commercial anytime soon, but a working prototype within a few years is certainly a possibility.
        • Tiak, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3A "working prototype" is honestly even unrealistic within a few years... The plants both take years to construct, and aren't really well developed yet in design/the material science of it all. Fusion net power production can only be sustained for extremely shot periods of time at present.

          See:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
      • scabbers, on 02/12/2008, -1/+12Except they haven't built anything, so the heat captured isn't significantly greater than the energy used to run the device, because the device doesn't exist.
      • KraftDinner101, on 02/12/2008, -0/+14In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
        • forgetfulca, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2I get the quote, the thing is fusion does obey the laws of thermodynamics. So it's a little inappropriate.
      • Lehawk, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Considering helium is supposed to be in a state of shortage, this could be a great boon as well. Hopefully it could produce some helium-3 as well.
        • allywilson, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Hold on...correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't Helium the 2nd most abundant element in the universe?
        • warriorscot, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Its really hard to get your hands on in high concentrations and useful amounts, it requires stupid amounts of energy to get it cold enough to distill it from air and unlike Hydrogen there is no basic reaction that will produce it either.
        • bravo1995, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Yeah, helium's the 2nd most abundant element in the universe, but it ain't the second most abundant element on Earth.
      • funkytaco, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4The world's first helium balloon/fusion factory?
      • BigManOnCampus, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2I was simply making a joke at the expense of etremists.
    • daxsymbiont, on 02/12/2008, -10/+8hatred against environmentalism usually hides extremist right wing policies.

      there are the crazy environmentalists and there are the decent ones.
      • brianbennett, on 02/12/2008, -13/+7If opposition to socialism, higher taxes and an crippling the economy are extreme, then yeah.
        • GramarNatzi, on 02/12/2008, -4/+7I presume your pattern of logical thought goes something like this..
          Environmentalists = Socialists
          Socialists = Communists
          Communists = Terrorists
          So yea, lets send all those damn hippies to guantamano bay! Who are they to question our impact on the environment, those damn freedom haters
        • warriorscot, on 02/12/2008, -2/+4Europe has allot of socialist government at least by US standards of socialism and allot of center line governments that have socialist policies and they have a better Economy than you, and a very high standard of living with very little poverty.

          So you can have socialists and socialist policies and a healthy Economy, arguably many socialist policies can improve an Economy as even though the tax burden is higher you no longer have to pay for other services that you would have before but are then covered by a more efficient non profit public body.
    • Tiak, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4You realize this optimistic artcle came from a site called "Eco Geek" right?... The environmentalists don't seem to have a problem with it.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2As has been said before.... Greenpeace != environmentalists. I was simply making a joke at extremists expense.
    • Khannea, on 02/13/2008, -1/+2I do propose not sharing this technology with (formerly) oil producing countries, - except under license and for a high fee -
  • RealmDown, on 02/12/2008, -15/+5What's the big deal? It's just a fruit drink.....
    • KraftDinner101, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3I'm afraid I've never heard of it.....
  • DrDragun, on 02/12/2008, -1/+28It looks so simple in the drawing... until you read "Linear Implosion System"
    • moskaudancer, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5It has a very "reverse the tachyon beam polarity" kind of sound to it, doesn't it?
    • tony23, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Better yet, it's misspelled. Look closely - it's a LINER implosion system. I guess they're imploding cruise ships?
      • SQLDigger, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Eye liner. Marilyn Manson's heading up the research team.
  • jls33fsls, on 02/12/2008, -1/+29I feel like this has happened before...
    • sgiffy, on 02/12/2008, -1/+13And it will happen again.
    • NeoCortex, on 02/12/2008, -1/+8Personally, I can't wait to get a Mr. Fusion installed in my DeLorean.
    • mattsegal, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4its called "The Saint"
    • inverselogic, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3With all thefusion machines and cancer curing we should be a utopia already..
  • gijoel, on 02/12/2008, -21/+6But can it supply 1.21 Jiggawatts to my flux capacitor? Can they install it on to my DeLoren? If not does it come in a ready-to-assemble kit?
    • MikeL123, on 02/12/2008, -1/+38There was room here for only one Back to the Future reference, and you just blew it with that.
      • kingraoul3, on 02/12/2008, -0/+12How many "Star Wars" do we have left? I'd like to reserve one for a later comment.
    • theworldisflat, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5You are trying far to hard.... a successful BttF reference doesn't usually need much.
  • tringtring, on 02/12/2008, -12/+7Nuclear energy will certainly play a prominent role in the alt energy spectrum of tomorrow, but there are many domains (for instance autos) where I'm not sure if they can play any role at all...

    BTW, let's not go crazy because a venture capitalist likes it...while VCs certainly are a bright bunch of folks, they are as big suckers as the man on the street when it comes to "earth-shaking" ideas
    • tonicboy, on 02/12/2008, -1/+18"but there are many domains (for instance autos) where I'm not sure if they can play any role at all" ever heard of electric cars?
      • pattykakes887, on 02/12/2008, -8/+2he meant nuclear energy, not alternate energy.
        • hyaena, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7Nuclear energy is used to create this crazy thing called electricity.
        • norman619, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2He has learned nothing from the past.
        • djbon2112, on 02/12/2008, -2/+2Nuclear energy is clean, safe and affordable. So, yes, it can power electric cars. So can fusion.
        • SQLDigger, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Indirectly, maybe, as in using a fusion generator to charge a battery; but barring some major discoveries, we're a lot more than 5 years (or 20 years) away from putting a fusion reactor in an automobile. Size, safety, and security are huge considerations. I have a feeling the private automobile will be obsolete as a major form of transportation by the time that technology comes to fruition. A fusion-powered train, I could see.
    • vertinox, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Well for one thing, if you have a working fusion reactor you can basically pump out as much hydrogen from electrolysis from water as you want and efficiency be damned.
  • YevS, on 02/12/2008, -1/+22From the General Fusion site "General Fusion has patented this technology and believes that a reactor working on this principle could be built at a much lower cost than using the old magnetic and laser fusion approaches"

    Meaning it should work in theory, but they need to build it first.

    A working prototype in 5 years? Sure
    Blueprints for a commercial reactor in 5 years? Not very likely

    The sience behind it is very exciting, combining the MF and the ICF approaches to create a vastly cheaper solution than either of the two. The core being a "3 meter diameter spherical tank" I can see this being used by the navy...
  • garfonzo, on 02/12/2008, -2/+23Star Trek Script:
    -- "Captain, the (tech jargon) is failing!"
    >> "We must bring the core to (tech jargon)."

    On screen:
    -- "Captain, the linear implosion system is failing!"
    >> "We must bring the core to thermonuclear conditions."
    • fridenstrom, on 02/12/2008, -0/+10And don't forget to reverse the polarity !
      • LuckyASN, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4And it'll be a dangerous mission. Let's send ensign ricky.
    • comradeTJH, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Plasma Injectors have to be replaced!
      • SPRFRKR, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5Have you checked the Containment Field? Sometimes it gets out of phase and you need to hit it with a hammer.
        • LuckyASN, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Nah, just use the deflector shield to bombard the posi-tronic pathways with tachyon beams. All you have to do is reroute it from the mess hall. It's simpler then we're making it.
  • elint6, on 02/12/2008, -1/+80We've been hearing that "fusion is just around the corner" since the 1960 World's Fair .
    • TypeEE, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Yup, when I was in highschool, my teacher told me it is 15years away, 15 years is around the corner, but it is still another 5 years away.
    • Tiak, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2In our defense, no one CREDIBLE is saying it anymore...
      Even the article was only saying that people MIGHT start THINKING about fusion in 5 years...

      After all, if anybody really believed that, the world wouldn't be wasting billions on an 8-year project into an experimental fusion reactor which will just BARELY produce net power, and even then for a short span of time (ITER). OPTOMISTIC sources put commercial nuclear power as being available in 2050.
    • eighties, on 02/12/2008, -2/+2Nuclear fusion in a controlled environment has already been demonstrated, and has not 'been around the corner' for twenty years. Heck, give me 6 months, ~ $5 000, access to some purified deuterium, a neutron bubble dosimeter and some bad-ass high voltage X-ray transformers and a workshop, and I could build you a fusion reactor.
      However, the problem with _useful_ controlled fusion reactors at this time is that it is an overall endothermic process; You have to put in more energy than you get out.
      • bravo1995, on 02/13/2008, -2/+0Well aren't you Mr. or Mrs. Fancy Pants.
      • Tiak, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2"fusion" in this case means power production through fusion... This much is obvious as nuclear fusion first happened in 1951...
        • Spiderbrigade, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Well, actually, nuclear fusion first happened circa 13.3 billion years ago with the formation of the first stars. :)
    • Andysan, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Well, we know that fusion can generate one hell of a lot of energy. We also know that we need one hell of a lot of energy. That inevitably means we will have one hell of a lot of snake-oil salesmen trying to tie the two together. Hang on to your wallet.
  • sronbheatha, on 02/12/2008, -17/+4rick roll
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSsJ19sy3JI
    • yohnstoppable, on 02/12/2008, -0/+11You're doing it wrong
      • centran, on 02/12/2008, -0/+9At least he's honest
        • moskaudancer, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1The only way he could have been more honest would be if he had used the "uuiU" link instead.
      • Vegiemaster, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Well, it's the first Rick Roll I've clicked on for a while... Dugg for reverse psychology!
    • garfonzo, on 02/12/2008, -3/+2What is with the Rick roll stuff?!

      hilarious video though
    • drastik21, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3u fail at digg.
  • alackofcolor, on 02/12/2008, -2/+55As a graduate student in physics, there's a common saying that nuclear fusion is always 20 years away.
    • MacEnvy, on 02/12/2008, -0/+14As someone who reads science articles, there's a common saying that nuclear fusion is always 20 years away.
    • esteskid, on 02/12/2008, -0/+30Fortunately for you they covered this in the article
      'In a world where we're all used to hearing that "Fusion power has been twenty years away for twenty years" hearing that it's five years away is pretty remarkable.'
      Try arguing with science like that !
      • AJoseph, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1In fifty years, when they start saying that it's just a "few years away", I'll start buying stock.
    • crapmatic, on 02/12/2008, -0/+12Well, technically speaking, according to Back to The Future it's only 7 years away.
      • utdrew182, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Got the Flordia World Series win right.
    • vertinox, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Great! Now were 5 years away from being 2 years away!
  • isuisorisuaint, on 02/12/2008, -3/+46how did i get here? i thought this was a shaving post.
    • patosan, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Fusion Power saves the day.
      But don't forget the Burma Shave!
      • inverselogic, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Ron paul!?!? (prepares for the massive bandwagon of negative diggs)
  • d3mag0gu3, on 02/12/2008, -12/+40What the hell does this have to do with Obama? Knock it off guys. Obama articles only!
    • Jaliyl, on 02/12/2008, -1/+6You are wrong, this isn't just a site for Obama articles, Anti-Hillary articles and Anonymous/Anti-Scientology articles are allowed too
    • weside, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2I laughed. Hard. Awesome. I'd digg you up 10x if I could. Hell, I'd even love to see this comment become commonplace amongst other articles, although I suppose it would lose its humorous aspect as quickly as "THIS WAS A TRIUMPH!" comments have.
  • rowlodge, on 02/12/2008, -2/+10perpetual motion inc. investors wanted.
    • DiggBuryMe, on 02/12/2008, -2/+1 this isn't perpetual motion
    • bravo1995, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Your perpetual motion machine is a joke! It just keeps going faster and faster!
  • esteskid, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3I like EMC2 Bussard fusion FTW. Who knows this could turn out to be economical though.
  • Chaoticfist, on 02/12/2008, -7/+2And some how, we will find a way to turn this into a weapon......sad state humanity is in.
    • garryw, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7Or ignite Jupiter and have a brown dwarf nearby. Cut down on night lighting.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Jupiter would need to be about seventy-five times as massive to fuse hydrogen and become a star - it isn't a matter of needing a spark or some such, but rather needing the pressure and heat.
        • VirgilNilson, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1It's a matter of reading popular books.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 02/12/2008, -1/+6Not portable enough to weaponize - if we can make it smaller and find a way to direct and funnel plasma from the fusion reaction, then maybe we could make a flamethrower or something out of it. A better way would be simply to use the energy output from it to power more conventional systems, or the new Navy railguns.
    • twazzer, on 02/12/2008, -0/+15there already is a fusion weapon- its called the hydrogen bomb
    • djbon2112, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike

      ???
    • Tiak, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3...You realize that we already do have thermonuclear bombs... Right?

      It is relatively easy to make cheap-and-dirty fusion by making matter implode, we already have weapons that do the same damage a fusion weapon would. Having pure fusion weapons (rather than fission-fusion) would just mean fallout goes from centuries to days... A good thing if you ask me.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4Just remember that half-life is inversely proportional to radioactivity - an instantly-lethal REM count would only last a few weeks, while a kill-you-so-slow-you-think-it's-a-career REM count could take decades to go away. If the half-life is in the centuries range, then it probably isn't going to be terribly unhealthy, especially considering what we have since learned about how much radiation we can take.

        If you just want to play with the radiation involved in a weapon, just salt it with different metals - if I remember right, salting a nuclear warhead with gold will make an area uninhabitable for about a month, tops, then it's fine.
  • Gigs, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3The Los Alamos Labs working on MTF haven't had success yet. Rebuilds should have been finished last month. http://wsx.lanl.gov/mtf.html
  • PhantasmXD, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2So when these doodads run, we can make really high pitched voices just by inhaling the byproducts?!?! Count me in!
    • K31TH3R, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3i have byproducts also, want to inhale them too?
  • ggnictee, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4I will remain cautiously optimistic. We've yet to see if fusion is even viable. That being said, they did do it that one time (even if it took more energy to make it go then you got out) and a working fusion reactor would help with lots of problems. It's always been a bit of a geek fantasy. That Fusion (well technology in general) would ride up on a big white horse and save us from ourselves. That being said, I have a friend at Los Alamos and he always just says "almost, sooo close, almost there"
    Oh well, here's to hope: the last thing out of Pandora's box.
    • fyngyrz, on 02/12/2008, -1/+6"We've yet to see if fusion is even viable."

      Step 1: Wait until daytime
      Step 2: Go outside
      Step 3: Look up at the really, really bright round thing (just for a moment.)

      Fusion has now been demonstrated as viable to you.
      • Tiak, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Now, try getting within a few hundred miles of that bright round thing and live...

        There are a number of non-trivial challenges in terrestrial fusion power production that may not be solvable in an economically viable way, for instance the plant has to absorb most of the extra particles produced in the fusion reaction to not kill people, but in absorbing these particles, the plant itself becomes more and more permanently radioactive. You have to eventually be able to swap out the shielding and store the now-radioactive old parts.

        There is of course also the matter of the complex requirements of sustaining fusion in a way that produces net energy without having a spare 2 ×10^30 kg of pressure.
        • fyngyrz, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Tiak, you forgot to put a battery in your sense of humor. He hung his leg out, I yanked on it, that's all.

          As far as I'm concerned fusion is still 20 years out. :-)
          • forgetfulca, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Tiak also forgot that no one's talking about making a device with a reaction chamber a few hundred thousand miles wide.
      • forgetfulca, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1On a site where sarcasm is every other post, yours still made me laugh.
    • Tiak, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2They didn't do it "that one time", they do it all the time... Some 15 year old kid did it in his garage fairly frequently.
  • kfed2, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5This will never work without government oversight & money. As if anything good could come from a rich, job creating venture capitalist investing in
    innovation which could end dependance on fossil fuels and completely change the world. CALL THE GOVERNMENT!!!!
    (sarcasm)
  • otakushark, on 02/12/2008, -1/+6I remember doing a report in college on how fusion should hit the self-sustaining point in about 15 years. That was in 1978, and we still haven't hit that milestone. Keep researching it, but not at the expense of other alternate sources of power that are clean and practical to build right now.
    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/d ...
    • alwshiloh, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1You mean like solar panels, wind turbines, ethanol, biodiesal, etc.? Yeah, those are gonna work.
      • funkywood, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2The first two yeah
      • otakushark, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Yes, by all means we should ignore actual WORKING technologies like wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric and just hope that fusion is "just around the corner" (where it's been for decades).
  • garryw, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4I worked on "oven" and robotics design for the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility. What we a doing, is turning weapons into energy, not the reverse.
  • taintedzodiac, on 02/12/2008, -5/+1If all is took to get fusion off the ground was throwing money at it, we'd have discovered it before fission.

    P.S. You forgot the ? at the end of the original title for the article. It really changes the meaning of the title.
  • KraftDinner101, on 02/12/2008, -4/+6Why is everything shaped like a penis?
  • krystofr, on 02/12/2008, -1/+16Five years??? No way. You're forgetting about the extra 10 years of bureaucrats trying to figure out how to TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT!
    • alittleroy101, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3I BET RON PAUL WOULDN'T DO THAT. VOTE RON PAUL YAY 11111
  • centran, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2This is at least something different. They are planning to make the fusion plants smaller and on par with coal plants. This is great news as smaller countries might jump on these new fusion plants. As much as people yell at the US for pollution because of cars they forget all the coal plants all over the world.
    When I picture fusion plants I pictured huge fission sized plants that has the same output as several fission plants. Well worth it but the initial cost would be high. Perhaps smaller is the way to go.
  • RobM, on 02/12/2008, -3/+12Yeah, but can they generate 1.21 gigawatts with that bad-boy?
    • 4degrees, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5will have to wait for the Mr. Fusion model.
    • slayerab, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3After pouring miller light and a half eaten banana in its chamber
  • sugarkang, on 02/12/2008, -2/+6this is like duke nukem forever.
  • sotloo, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Every few years or so someone comes out with an article like this and every time it just never comes to fruition. I will believe it when I see it - till then I pray it’s not some pump and dump scam.
    • TypeEE, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Consider all they've got is a drawing, they are 5 year away even if the concept is right.
  • ucbluman, on 02/12/2008, -5/+0fission power imo
  • crapmatic, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Someone had better make sure that the GE FusionMax Reactor Manual says "Add 12 mg of deuterium", not "Add 12 g". I've seen for myself how overenthusiastic Microsoft Word gets about auto-corrections, and I don't want my city blown up.
    • BlazinEurasian, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1the reaction wouldnt work with 12g. it needs precise measurements. Fusion is safe, no chain reactions are possible.
  • FLUX, on 02/12/2008, -3/+3when pigs fly
  • tfstone, on 02/12/2008, -1/+9First the cheeseburger in a can and now this! Where will it all end...
  • BlazinEurasian, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Fusion power is the only way mankind can sustain the kind of exponential development pace into the next two centuries without totally ***** up the planet.
  • BoneheadFarker, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0Cool...but how long until these are used to power a starship? I'm hoping 55 years is enough time...
  • floatingpoints, on 02/12/2008, -4/+2What the *****.

    This msaleem ***** has 5 ***** stories on the front page. Buried.
    • otakushark, on 02/13/2008, -1/+2Damn him for posting interesting content! Damn him to hell!
  • gquaglia, on 02/12/2008, -4/+1Some big oil company will buy them out and bury the project. They did the same thing with advanced battery technology years back when GM and others were experimenting with all electric cars.
    • pixlox, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1FYI, we are running out of oil. The oil companies know they are on borrowed time. If anything they will have secret plans to spring up fusion reactors when they would be more profitable.
  • casual7y, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Yes!

    My Simcity 2000 dream is finally coming to fruition (although i think the timeline is about 35 years off)
  • Texmurphy01, on 02/12/2008, -2/+0Nobody going to mention ITER here?
  • greevar, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2I'll bring some balloons!
  • stix213, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1It is nice to get a basic rundown on how fusion is supposed to work. The article is pretty lame though, since they give only a single sentence to the most important part:

    "The heat captured is significantly greater than the energy used to run the device and the only byproduct is helium and other harmless gasses."

    Scientists have been able to produce a fusion reaction for many many years. The problem is that the amount of energy to maintain the reaction has always been greater than the amount of energy produced. Gravity on the sun causes the hydrogen to smash together, but we have to use artificial, and energy intensive, means on earth to smash all those hydrogens into helium. I wish they would describe a bit just how they were able to accomplish creating more energy than is needed to maintain the reaction, instead of just giving one sentence that just claims that the virtual miracle of fusion power generation is here and to just accept the word of the article.

    I'll believe it when I get some more info on how these geniuses are able to produce more energy than is needed to maintain the reaction.
  • i4ybrid, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Honey, I've got to go around the corner to put some PLASMA IN MY CAR.
  • MikeFallopian, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4I hear it cures AIDS and ends world hunger too. Look, real scientific researchers have been studying fusion power for decades and are skeptical that we will have working power plants even 50 years from now. Fusion power holds huge promise and potential, but it's NOT repeat NOT 5 years away.
  • DanaG, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1In related news, the late Dr. Bussard's latest experimental device (WB-7) recently had "first plasma". http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2008/01/wb-7-f ...

    "The initial analysis showed that Bussard's data on energy yields were consistent with expectations"
  • stix213, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2pets.com was backed by venture capitalists, and we all know how successful that was
  • MrMoonlight, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1yeah SIM CITY FTW!
  • Brian48216, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1how is this 5 years away?
    Has there ever been a case of Nuclear Fusion yielding more energy then it takes to start the reaction?
    I mean, I'm totally hopeful that one day it would be successful and it would mean clean, plentiful, cheap power, but right now it just sorta seems like a money grab from investors instead of genuine breakthroughs.
    • dcshiderly, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Yes. In late 2005, Robert Bussard's Energy-Matter Conversion Corporation, under a contract with the U.S. Navy Department for Advanced Propulsion Research, built and tested a Polywell reactor configuration that produced 300% net energy. This system, when fueled with boron-11 and hydrogen, produces no hard, ionizing radiation (soft X-ray only) and the reaction products are hot helium ions, high-speed charged particles with which we can extract energy at high efficiency using direct electric converters (coils, high-voltage traps, etc.).

      Eric Lerner's Focus Fusion (dense-plasma focus) has a power-return curve that goes energy positive at a 3-million-ampere discharge, by a factor of ~150%. Other researchers have partially confirmed his findings.

      Dr. Bussard has since passed away, but his company has received another round of financing to build and test two full-scale reactor configurations, minus the power extraction hardware. The WB7 and WB8 designs will validate the math for the magnetic field configurations. At this point, the base science is a done deal; all that remains is the engineering work to get a full production system running.

      Three meters on a side, consuming 1-10Kg of decaborane/week, producing ~10GWatt continuous, in a facility the size of a small gas station, with zero radiation, and only a completely non-reactive gas as a product of operation.
    • DrDabbles, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1There have been several reactors that have generated more power than they consume. Unfortunately these were all lab reactors and couldn't be sustained for a laundry list of other reasons.
  • jsbarone, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a lot of the people above me getting "fusion" and "fission" confused? Nuclear Bombs are not fusion weapons, they're fission weapons. Fusion is the process of two smaller atoms fusing together to form a heavier atom, resulting in the release of a large ammount of energy. Fission is the process of splitting a larger atom to form two smaller atoms, resulting in the release of a large amount of energy. "Fusion", think the engine that keeps the sun going, "Fission" think Nuclear bomb.
  • fuzzynyanko, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Sounds cool. Hopefully it won't have any weird side effects like radioactive waste.
  • spartan777, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1i'd hate to break it to anyone, but i've done some fusion research through UW madison, and fusion power is definitely not 5 years away. we're at least 10 years away from generating power, and after that it takes a while to get it to a stage where you could power cities with. however, this is great news, this new bit of funding, but van Lierop is being very optimistic to say the least.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.