Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
this will be a waste commensurate with the amount of resources spent on it. fusion is a way of consuming energy, not making it. there is only a slim chance that this character can ever be overturned. very, very slim. where would that leave it in terms of an efficient source of energy?
Where do you source that claim that the chances are very very slim. The scientists working on it say it is not if but when it will become a feesable power source.
i'm a chemical engineer. i've endured a good bit of physics which i think adds some crucial perspective to the idea that it is as feasible as is popular to believe. there isn't consensus on the viability of fusion for energy. it plays out in experiments -- all of them -- up to this point. the current approach to fusion employs tritium which takes energy to produce. energy is even expended extracting deuterium, the other main ingredient. sustained energy has to be introduced to create the reaction and sustain it. notwithstanding the ancillary costs in refining the fuel, the energy put in has never, and might never be less than what is available from the reaction.
we have a fusion generator, the sun, it is responsible for wind, waves and rain -- all the energy on the planet. there could be viability to fusion. i dont think it is as clear as abandoning all other sources before a proof of concept defies the math which dictates you cant make energy out of nothing.
Well you said it all when you said "the current approach to fusion employs tritium which takes energy to produce. "
I would assume an advancement beyond that method is what they are counting on.