Is Cheap and Unlimited Energy Near.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23408073 Nuclear fusion is getting closer to being harnessed to give cheap and unlimited energy with no atomic waste and no polluting gases.

Re: Is Cheap and Unlimited Energy Near.

I was very against nuclear power for many years but have had a change of heart looking at what we need and how we can make it happen. Seems it could be the only way forward.

Re: Is Cheap and Unlimited Energy Near.

I'm not sure if this is the same as cold fusion or not (I've tried to compare online and can't see much of a difference). If it is the same:

'... the half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tends to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. Although this waste will be considerably more radioactive during those 50 years than fission waste, the very short half-life makes the process very attractive, as the waste management is fairly straightforward. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash.[45]

Additionally, the choice of materials used in a fusion reactor is less constrained than in a fission design, where many materials are required for their specific neutron cross-sections. This allows a fusion reactor to be designed using materials that are selected specifically to be "low activation", materials that do not easily become radioactive. Vanadium, for example, would become much less radioactive than stainless steel. Carbon fiber materials are also low-activation, as well as being strong and light, and are a promising area of study for laser-inertial reactors where a magnetic field is not required.

In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less radioactive material than a fission reactor, the material it would create is less damaging biologically, and the radioactivity "burns off" within a time period that is well within existing engineering capabilities.'

Either way, this could be very exciting news and just what is needed. I'd still prefer no radioactive waste but at least this seems to be manageable and not having a shelf life of thousands of years might just be worth taking a risk with.

If anyone can tell me if it's the same as hydro fusion, I'd be very grateful (http://hydrofusion.com/)

Re: Is Cheap and Unlimited Energy Near.

I watched something about this on the TV the other night
We know nuclear fusion is possible from the tests at Culham in Oxfordshire. If only it could be scaled it up it would solve many of our energy problems .
I have no doubt the scientists will succeed one day.

Re: Is Cheap and Unlimited Energy Near.

It will be quite a while before a fusion reactor will provide any power.

Re: Is Cheap and Unlimited Energy Near.

There's a chap called Andrea Rossi who claims he has pretty much got it sorted. He's refusing to give details and there are claims that that is because it isn't fully functional but it could just be that he's going to protect his invention maybe or they could be right - as he's an inventor, I don't understand why he'd risk his reputation by making false claims. We shall have to wait and see!