13 Feb 14
But I wonder how many years it will take to really get it out of the lab and into the real world power generation. If it takes much more than ~20 years, I bet it would be made redundant by the combination of renewables and off-the-grid storage before it even has a chance to pan out -and then it would be all for nothing.
13 Feb 14
Originally posted by humyI don't think it will be THAT bad, it looks like inertial fusion is beating the ITER tokamak concept so we will see. At least there are several fusion technologies being pursued, it would not do to put all the tech eggs in one basket. There is still fission, it will be around for decades like it or not. I think it sucks but I don't have any political pull. Solar keeps getting more efficient and cheaper with a number of different technologies pursued, organic for instance. Then there is the wave power strips under water, that sounds promising. The thing is, we need a lot of different kinds of technologies producing energy so if some total roadblock happens with one technique others can take its place, like a lot of countries are forgoing nuclear but others will replace that.
But I wonder how many years it will take to really get it out of the lab and into the real world power generation. If it takes much more than ~20 years, I bet it would be made redundant by the combination of renewables and off-the-grid storage before it even has a chance to pan out -and then it would be all for nothing.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
13 Feb 14
Originally posted by humy"all for nothing"...really?
But I wonder how many years it will take to really get it out of the lab and into the real world power generation. If it takes much more than ~20 years, I bet it would be made redundant by the combination of renewables and off-the-grid storage before it even has a chance to pan out -and then it would be all for nothing.
14 Feb 14
3 edits
Originally posted by joe shmoIf it being made obsolete even before it is made practical means it will never be used on Earth, yes.
"all for nothing"...really?
I predict fission will eventually be used in space -but that is a VERY long way off and hardly worth researching it for that purpose right now.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by humyFission is already being used in space, several probes including Curiosity are nuke powered. Fusion has a better chance of success as a propulsion system than fission and that would pretty much open up the whole solar system, for instance, if you can muster up a 1 g long term propulsion, just about the entire solar system is reachable within a week or two and that includes Pluto and the outer dwarf planets.
If it being made obsolete even before it is made practical means it will never be used on Earth, yes.
I predict fission will eventually be used in space -but that is a VERY long way off and hardly worth researching it for that purpose right now.
14 Feb 14
5 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseSorry, mispost; I meant to say "fusion"in that post, not "fission" 🙂 Sorry for the confusion.
Fission is already being used in space, several probes including Curiosity are nuke powered. Fusion has a better chance of success as a propulsion system than fission and that would pretty much open up the whole solar system, for instance, if you can muster up a 1 g long term propulsion, just about the entire solar system is reachable within a week or two and that includes Pluto and the outer dwarf planets.
Does anyone know why I am seeing my smiliys ("🙂" ) appear with their right side chopped off? Is this a bug at my end or at this website?
14 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humymispost; I meant to say "fusion" there, not "fission" like I did which meant my post didn't make much sense. I do know the big difference between the two.
If it being made obsolete even before it is made practical means it will never be used on Earth, yes.
I predict fission will eventually be used in space -but that is a VERY long way off and hardly worth researching it for that purpose right now.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by humyWell we are very glad to hear that🙂
mispost; I meant to say "fusion" there, not "fission" like I did which meant my post didn't make much sense. I do know the big difference between the two.
BTW, the pundits say fusion rockets will be easier to make than fission since you are just going for thrust and don't have to worry too much about details like radiation and such, they say you build a mile long accelerator basically and you can get fusion and a lot more thrust and long lasting thrust than fission or chemical rockets.