Fusion catches fire

Don, Tualatin Oregon — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:58:58 GMT

Lions and tigers and bears. OH MY! I think the naysayers will try to run all this into the ground. I say kudos to all the forward thinkers of today who are trying to push the envelope and find ways to power our planet without fossil fuels. Combine this with the advances we will get from the LHC and who knows what tomorrow may hold? Another great article by the author!

Fusion catches fire

Martin, Orlando — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:05:57 GMT

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is suprised by how much press the space station and LHC get when major projects like the one at the NIF are going on and are never even mentioned.

Fusion catches fire

Loyd Reddig Weatherford, Texas — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:22:23 GMT

When are they going to wire up my house with this free electricity? Make electricity out of cabbage, right? How about some good old American natural gas for now. This lab might have 50 genuises working there, but 500,000 US energy workers unemployed.

Fusion catches fire

Charlie Connors — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:23:28 GMT

Great info and best of luck to each approach. My favorite is the Polywell approach by Nebel and EMC2 from New Mexico. This is really out of the box stuff and the risk/reward is extremely favorable. ITER will likely be over-budget my billions...when Polywell could be fully funded by just millions.

Fusion catches fire

D Russell — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:29:00 GMT

I also read in a science magazine that there is also a Canadian guy working on a mechanically induced form of fusion. He has these pistons that fire with atomic bomb detonator kind of accuracy to induce a pressure wave in a metal sphere. Inside the sphere is a fast spinning plazma and the fusion material sits in the votex's center. It would be nice to find out more about how that is going.

Fusion catches fire

Aaron — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:36:08 GMT

Yes lets turn all the hydrogen into helium so that we have no water to drink, that's a good idea. It's not an endless fuel supply. When hydrogen fuses it forms helium which cannot be made into water. Why do we think this is a good idea.

Fusion catches fire

Michael DeBurgh, Henderson, NV — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:42:14 GMT

This is an indication of why I am not worried about energy shortage. When necessary, human ingenuity will find a way to improvise, adapt, and overcome obstacles. That's the strength of we humans.

Fusion catches fire

CM, modesto CA — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:02:08 GMT

With all those glowing promises, I'm reminded that nuclear fission supporters once promised power "too cheap to meter". We still haven't seen any fusion reactor that makes more power than it consumes, and every step closer to that breakeven point is accompanied by an increase in size, complexity and cost. We might achieve breakeven, only to find it too expensive to be cost competitive!
Nonetheless, let research continue. Even if it doesn't solve our energy problems, the knowledge learned will be worth the cost.

Fusion catches fire

J A, N, N — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:13:20 GMT

> Posted: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:46 PM by Alan Boyle

I think you posted that about 5 hrs and 15 minutes early.

Fusion catches fire

Bryant Hudson, Norman, Oklahoma — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:28:04 GMT

Get a grip, there is still a long way to go. Fusion energy will not impact anyone who is alive today. It's interesting, NIF is a fantantical physics laboratory - but not an energy technology. The sun is a magnificent fusion reactor that showers the earth with a large amount of electromagnetic energy that is available for our use if we chose to bother. Solar energy is fusion energy that is clean and the source of life on our planet.

Fusion catches fire

Sarah Johnson — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:40:23 GMT

This looks amazing! Hopefully it will live up to all the hype. I have heard about fusion for a long time, maybe it will actually be a reality!

Fusion catches fire

BMS, VA — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:53:08 GMT

Buzzard's solution is the most viable, and you missed the boat.

Fusion catches fire

CLP — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:11:14 GMT

I'm no expert, but how safe is this technology? No one wants to get a stray laser to the eye...

Fusion catches fire

Brian Otterson, Okinawa, Japan — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:24:04 GMT

The proven way to reap the benifits of nuclear fusion is through solar power. We have a very large fusion reactor placed 150 million kilometers away for safety concerns, and yet it still sends us the energy it produces for free. A very nice arrangment if you ask me.

Fusion catches fire

Kris Jackson, North Grafton, MA — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:15:36 GMT

I remember reading that fusion was twenty or thirty years away forty years ago. All of this stuff looks interesting but none of it looks like it could light a single light bulb. But the research should continue, if only because it might teach us something. And it keeps those scientists off the street.

Fusion catches fire

M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:39:19 GMT

Tall Dave says thank you at:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1208

Fusion catches fire

David, Pass CHristian, MS — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:02:24 GMT

Why does it always take so long for a science writer to get to the nitty-gritty?

Don't you all know that the educated are bored with minute details?

Fusion catches fire

Rod Adams, Annapolis, Maryland — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:21:43 GMT

Yes - I remain a fusion skeptic, especially when the enthusiasts talk about how they are going to someday solve the world's energy supply challenges - as long as we give them hundreds of millions (polywell) to tens of billions (NIF and ITER) in taxpayer money to build devices to get just a little bit closer to the goal. It is especially galling when the well educated scientists or salesmen involved in the programs use easily disproved arguments lifted directly from the tracts of anti-nuclear activist groups to show how their "someday" technology is "cleaner and safer" than our currently operating and readily available fission technology. (Go and read some of the defensive comments on my skeptical post regarding the fusion-fission hybrid - link in story.)

When I say that "fission works" I am using a bit of classic understatement. It not only works, but it beats its fossil fuel competition hands down in terms of safety, reliability, cleanliness and operating costs.

The only real ding is that capital costs are high enough to require longer than desired payback periods. Even that disadvantage is oversold - the payback periods are far less than the PROVEN lifetime of the plants. The 104 operating commercial reactors in the US produce power at an average O&M cost of 17.60 per megawatt hour and they are essentially paid off with 20-40 years of life remaining before decommissioning. Translation - cash cow in a market where the price setters are running at costs of $23.00 (mine mouth coal) to $50-80 per megawatt-hour (natural gas combustion turbines depending on market price of gas, which varies a lot) to well over $100 - (subsidized solar).

There is an easy way to reduce the capital cost of fission - stop using bogus arguments against it to slow progress, cause unnecessary regulations, and require excessive back-ups to back-ups that all add cost without improving an already incredible safety record.

Fusion catches fire

Marek, Toronto, ON — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:27:58 GMT

What is predicted to happen once the fuel material in the target "pellet" is spent – does it end with a blast, the pellet simply gets vaporised, ...?
How significantly different is the predicted energy output versus the energy spent (not just during the firing of the lasers but overall building the device, replacements of components, etc.)?

Fusion catches fire

Jesse F CHICAGO,IL — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:55:19 GMT

any local power utility could have its own miniature sun - on a commercial basis," Is this really something we should willingly put into the hands of power company's ? I'm no scientist but the thought of this thing exploding sends shivers down my spine...Have they even thought that through ? Do they know what kind of destruction this could bring ? Seems funny to me that only a few short years this kind of technology would have made you a laughing stock,and now it's cutting edge tech ? Seems to me we are so consumed with possiblity of what we can do,we don't take the time to see if we should or what the bad outcome of this could be...The world almost stopped over the collider,yet nothing is being said about harnessing the power of the SUN ?

Fusion catches fire

Michael L, Perth Australia — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:57:04 GMT

Great summary article. I hadn't heard about the fusion-fission hybrid concept before. Thanks.

Fusion catches fire

Stefanie Sellars, Simi Valley, CA — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:51:52 GMT

Dear Mr. Boyle,

I am surprised to see that Focusfusion was left out of the Fusion news.

http://pesn.com/2009/02/20/9501526_Lawrenceville_Plasma_Physics_funded/

This is THE Most inexpensive (about $500,000 per station) fusion research ongoing to date and it is much less difficult to understand. It is a pulsed fusion reactor - very very small that puts out more energy than goes into it. It also used Hydrogen-boron fuel, was a focus of JPL for a craft to Mars for a number of years because it could make the trip in about 4 months. It also has recently acquired funding. It is well worth mention in your article and is much cheaper to build. $500,000 each versus $10,000,000,000 each for some of the other mentions.

There is a google tech talk about it here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1518007279479871760

It has it's own website here: http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

I ask that you have a look and consider it for publication and/or addition to your Fusion article.

Fusion catches fire

John In Texas — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:22:18 GMT

Bravo! Even if fusion appears to be a long shot, its promise is great enough to justify the research expense.

Fusion catches fire

Vladimir Enlow — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:54:12 GMT

Excellent news. It's long past time we developed a viable alternative to fossil fuels, which in the next fifty years will probably cease to be a viable alternative for Earth's energy needs.

I'm also excited about this development since every scenario for deep space travel (i.e., something that doesn't involve merely circling the planet) will require a massive energy source... in other words, a fusion reaction.

Fusion catches fire

Eric, Salinas, CA — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:08:05 GMT

Excellent article Alan! How exciting that we live in such a wonderful time of scientific advancement. I'm glad that Obama is our president and that he has saved our participation in ITER fusion research after that dimbulb bushwhacker almost killed the funding.

Despite the current low oil and gas prices they won't last and we had better get our act together on alternative energy production now before the prices go way back up. Our country should be at the forefront of alternative energy production, especially the fusion sources that promise great amounts of energy for little resource usage.

Support Fusion Power!

Fusion catches fire

Dave F. - Peotone, IL — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:10:14 GMT

Great stuff. It would be nice if any - or all - of it actually works as hoped. Thanks for the info, Alan.

Fusion catches fire

Exeder — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:10:33 GMT

If fusion is such a hallucination how come we have 100 trillion + stars in the sky?

Fusion catches fire

Myron, Temple,TX — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:23:34 GMT

And if not? "At the pace we're going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us," he wrote.

Every living creature since life began on Earth has had to deal with natural climate change. It has been cooling for the last 10 years even though CO2 levels have risen. CO2 levels are still just a third of what they have been in the past. Solar output is down, cosmic ray impacts are rising which is leading to cooling. But somehow man is responsible.

Fusion catches fire

L Warr — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:30:43 GMT

I think the fission approach should be LFTRs, as recommended by James Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
and detailed in
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/

Fusion catches fire

Josh, Denver, CO — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:39:29 GMT

Alan, Good stuff.

I don't have a great knowledge of this process, so i am hoping someone can answer my question. How goes this process create a net gain in energy? I always understood that this was the issue with antimatter as well. It takes just as much energy to produce antimatter than it produces when it comes in contact with matter, thus a net gain is impossible. Wouldn't it take the same amount of energy to ignite a pellet of hydrogen than you can get out of it with the fusion process as well?

Fusion catches fire

Simple Simon, Pautucket, RI — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:05:18 GMT

Fusion power was just 20 years away -- when I got my physics degree 30 years ago. It has been so ever since.

Maybe Obama will fix that by firing Big Fusion's chief scientist, and finding some government people to run things.

Fusion catches fire

Bill Woods, Redwood City, Calif. — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:47:43 GMT

And then there's thorium fission. See
"The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8

Fusion catches fire

Timmy Two Moons — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:03:11 GMT

Very dramatic video. Creating a star on earth huh? A star is a giant ball of mostly hydrogen gas undergoing fusion at it's core which provides the counterforce necessary to forestall gravitational collapse. They've got all that in that ten meter containment facility? I guess that video got them the money to make a small scale nuclear explosion very inefficiently under laboratory conditions for study. I guess that's just not as exciting an explanation

Fusion catches fire

Timmy Two Moons — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:04:15 GMT

Sorry Alan,
I think the article was great actually. My previous post had issue with the corny drama in the video. Just wanted to clarify.

Fusion catches fire

g coulter las vegas nv — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:28:06 GMT

fusion,yes fission no welcome to 2400 AD

Fusion catches fire

Tim, Overland Park, Kansas — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:43:10 GMT

It would be great if we could get fusion to work, but is this modern alchemy? Yeah fusion exists... in stars. How many stars are small enough to fit inside a large office building? And stay stable at that size. I'm no expert, obviously. I hope it's possible, and that we continue to research and use other forms of power generation.

Fusion catches fire

Paul , tulsa, Ok — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:58:02 GMT

Of all the alternative fusion concepts i've read about the polywell seems to be the most viable approach to commercial fusion power. Hopefully, the polywell concept will get the funding it needs to determine if the concept can produce net power.

Fusion catches fire

Onevoice, Frederick MD — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:20:58 GMT

Great stuff Mr Boyle. Just wish you had more in here about the several groups working on different kinds of so called 'cold fusion'.

Fusion catches fire

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:26:54 GMT

The sooner we can get this comercial fusion power going, the easier we could have electric car with no worries and deeper space travel. It would also mean that we could have a number of these fusion generator around the planet. We wouldn't need people to mine coal anymore or drill for oil reducing our need for fossil fuels.

Fusion catches fire

Doug Jones — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:11:06 GMT

All the fusion reactors under development will at best just barely manage to induce fusion, and have ZERO chance of an uncontained reaction- fusion is incredibly difficult. There is absolutely no cause for worry on that score.

As for turning earth's hydrogen into helium and drying out the planet, ahahahaha, we should have such problems!

Quoting from wikipedia:

"Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the 1995 global power output of about 100 EJ/yr (= 1 x 1020 J/yr) and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[9] To put this in context, 150 billion years is over ten times the currently measured age of the universe, and is close to 30 times the remaining lifespan of the sun."

So in a million years, we'd use up about 6 parts per million of earth's _Deuterium_, or about one billionth of the total ocean, about 1 km3 total. Hoover dam holds back 35 times as much water (on those rare occasions when it's full).

Innumeracy is a terrible thing.

Fusion catches fire

Tarell D. Dyer, Pampa, Texas — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:18:46 GMT

This is to S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

You took the words out of my mouth, this excites me due to the fact of what it could mean to space travel, just think of being able to travel to Mars etc. within a few months instead of a few years it would be a wonderful thing.

Fusion catches fire

Tarell D. Dyer, Pampa, Texas — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:20:50 GMT

Could this also be an April fools joke ;)

Fusion catches fire

Aaron, MA — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:33:10 GMT

So far I've found most the comments to be quite useful to the ongoing discussion about fusion/fission power and its future.

But I have to address one [...] person.

Aaron:
I suggest you research more on the processes that give us our water as it stands before you make such statements. Taking hydrogen and turning it to helium would not deplete our water supplies, as the helium would eventually break down or be broken back down anyway. Besides which, the purpose is not to turn hydrogen into helium. All that is is adding an electron. There's no energy release. To better understand the process, watch the explosion that occurs when a balloon of hydrogen is popped (with a candle) in an oxygen rich enviroment. Water vapor is released, along with a sizeable explosion of energy.

Fusion catches fire

TallDave — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:14:57 GMT

Thanks for the Polywell update (and the link) as well as the other news. Very interesting stuff.

It's good to hear something from Rick. We don't see him much at Talk-Polywell anymore. Hopefully that means he has better things to do!

Fusion catches fire

hewhoiscalledj, Las Vegas, NV — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:21:07 GMT

So... creating more energy than what is put in. This defies the laws of thermodynamics. While I wholeheartedly agree that the planet needs a "game-changer," I'm still not convinced that it will be possible without incurring consequences and repurcussions. Fission is/was a brilliant solution if it werent for the problems of constant and vigilant maintenance and the waste problem. I'm rooting for the scientists, I truly am, but we have never been able to circumvent the effects of entropy. Has anyone seen a perpetual motion machine that actually worked? Until then, we should focus on reducing our dependency and wasteful use of the little energy left to us. Consider how people ever lived without cell phones, iPods, and I'll be the first to say it... air conditioning. We simply can not maintain/sustain our (American) energy spending habits. Our kids and grandkids simply can't afford it.

[ALAN ADDS: I agree with you ... on the issue of getting more energy than you put in, I should have known I'd lose some people on that. On one level, you're getting more energy than you put in when you throw a log on the fire (not Cosmic Log, I hope!) That's a chemical reaction that results in heat emission. With fusion, a tiny bit of mass is converted into energy. This has to do with the binding energy of the particles. This page explains how binding energy works:]

http://www.nuceng.ca/igna/binding_energy.htm

Fusion catches fire

Daniel, Dallas, Texas — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:30:44 GMT

If only we had a couple of Super Saiyans... Goku, Vegeta... Where are you? Really, there is no such thing as "free lunch". Somebody has to pay for it somewhere, eventually...

Fusion catches fire

Ripster — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:35:23 GMT

Combustion is simple to control and use for energy production. Consequently we use a lot of it. Fission is complex to control and use for energy production. Consequently we use much less of it. Fusion is mondo-beyondo complex. We don't use any yet and I doubt fusion will get beyond an insignificant contribution to overall energy production within the next 50 years. Meanwhile our atmosphere is loading up with carbon dioxide from that oh-so-easy combustion and we don't have 50 years to wait for fusion to take over while climate change fries our biosphere. Time to get real and that means lots of modest solutions working together instead of one big "gamechanger". We need everything from better energy storage to better efficiency to increased renewable energy sources. Stop wasting time and money looking for the magic bullet - it's not out there.

Fusion catches fire

J. Overlin Vancouver, Wa — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:38:50 GMT

Why all the big TO DO? Everyone wants to spend cazillions of dollars to get free sustainable energy. Well, the technology has been around since the 1950's. A hydrogen fuel cell in your house would provide all your electricity, some or all of your hot water and a by-product of pure water, and would be powered by the methane gas from your sewer line. When you are not using the electricity the excess would go into the power grid. The utility would have to pay for this power. Why isn't anybody doing this? Ask the CEO of your local power company. Mine makes $8 million a year. If we all had hydrogen fuel cells in our house the CEO's would have to get a real job.

Fusion catches fire

C, Green bay, WI — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:42:35 GMT

Maybe someone can explain if they are making a real sun or a theoretical "sun"? If it was a real sun, would it be too small for a gravitational collapse? This is why I don't do too much physics study, it makes my head hurt.

Fusion catches fire

jan finder, Albany, NY — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:07:09 GMT

Why is ther no work being done on Solar Updraft Towers?

Fusion catches fire

Mark Anthony, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:18:17 GMT

MSNBC should report more on the REAL progress in fusion: Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (Cold Fusion). The announcement on March. 23, 2009 by American Chemical Society is maybe the single most important science news for the decade. For the first time, there is no more doubt raised about the experimental result: high energy neutrons have indeed been detected, so it's prooof positively there is a NUCLEAR process going on.

Cold Fusion technology not only has a huge implication on our energy future, but also has a huge NATIONAL SECURITY implication if it falls into the wrong hands. You must read this to understand the danger:

http://tinyurl.com/ddfdvy

Read it and pass it to your elected politicians. Urge them to support LENR research. BTW buy some palladium metal for a great investment.

Fusion catches fire

Chris K — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:30:38 GMT

[...] The hydrogen used in a fusion reaction of this kind is either heavy hydrogen (deuterium, which has one neutron as opposed to hydrogen's zero), or tritium which has two neutrons. NEITHER of which can be combined with oxygen to form water.

Fusion catches fire

A Questionative person — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:32:38 GMT

Mr. Jones you said:
"All the fusion reactors under development will at best just barely manage to induce fusion, and have ZERO chance of an uncontained reaction- fusion is incredibly difficult. There is absolutely no cause for worry on that score."
By fusion reactors under development, is NIF considered here? Is this a fusion reactor prototype?

Fusion catches fire

Bill, Gibsonton, FL — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:34:54 GMT

Fusion will happen. There is no question about that. It's just a matter of time. Look at Henry Ford. He said he could mass produce automobiles, and he did. Now it's history. Look at Hyman George Rickover. He didn't really know that much about Nuclear Powered Submarines, but he went ahead and built one. Now that's history as well. I envy people alive today who were born in the 19th century. Look at the history they've seen come and go. So much of it people take for granted today. If you don't think you take things for granted? How do you feel when your power goes out? Fusion will happen and when it does, it's going to put a lot of people back to work.

Fusion catches fire

Ripster — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:52:40 GMT

In answer to the question from "C": Earth-bound fusion is like the sun only in the sense that it creates the same nuclear reaction. The sun uses gravity to compress its hydrogen enough to fuse it into into a heavier element (helium), thereby releasing energy. On earth, we use an array of lasers all aimed inward at a single point, or carefully-configured magnetic fields, to compress the hydrogen and initiate fusion. Fusion reactors on earth are not really "mini-suns" but they do have enough similarity that people often describe them that way.

Fusion catches fire

Tony Castaneda, Las Vegas, NV — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:59:05 GMT

The original people who promised Fusion power are now dead and long gone away. These fusion reactor proponents will also die away.

Fission Reactors, and a breeder program have been producing power in France for 30 years.

Politically incorrect, technically competent. It will be ignored by the popcorn science crowd now in the white house, as usual.

Fusion catches fire

Aaron, SLC, UT — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:27:08 GMT

I would like someone here to show me how we are going to (or currently) able to circumvent the basic law of conservation of energy in which we cannot gain more energy than what was put into it.

You can't create energy. You can only transform it from one state to another. Period.

I have seen so many attempts over the years of people claiming to have developed a new method or device that outputs more energy than was was put into it but when they come up for an actual scientific review, they never pan out. It's heart-breaking for sure, but it's simple fact.

The universe and all the stars in it follow the same laws so I'm not sure why man thinks he'll do any better though I don't knock anybody for trying.

Honestly, if there were such devices possible and actually produced more energy than what is invested, don't you all realize companies would already be doing exactly that? The financial power companies could have on technology that actually does it would be staggering.

A simple way to start learning why what some of the things described here aren't possible (only in terms of gaining more engery than was was put in), take a good long look at perpetual motion machines (and how they don't actually work). Not to mention reading up on the conservation of energy.

That being said, I do love to see new studies performed and society as a whole gain new understanding but as of this writing, what some claim to be able to do are blowing smoke in others faces.

Don't let some of these companies fool you that they are gaining more than what they put into it. In the physical realm, you simply can't.

I'm all for science and for the actual legit studies described here in the article don't get me wrong. It will continue to advance man-kind as a whole but I do really dislike people and companies that make false unverified claims against the masses for their own financial gain.

In short, take it all with a grain of salt and study carefully what claims are being made by companies.

Fusion catches fire

Richard Hill, Melbourne, Victoria — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:31:46 GMT

Another unconventional fusion related project is the Mosier-Boss project at USN SPAWAR San Diego. She has reported high speed neutrons (poss fusion generated) from a Deuterium-Palladium Cell. This was reported at a recent American Chemical Society meeting.

Fusion catches fire

Lewis Larsen, Lattice Energy LLC, Chicago, IL — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:34:03 GMT

Nice, well-written article. However, "cold fusion" is more than just "in the game" and by the way, it is NOT strong interaction fusion: it is based on weak interactions. And yes, it is potentially better than 'hot fusion' if successfully commercialized because there are no energetic neutrons and no gammas. See: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/scienergy.php

Fusion catches fire

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:53:16 GMT

"Yes lets turn all the hydrogen into helium so that we have no water to drink, that's a good idea. It's not an endless fuel supply. When hydrogen fuses it forms helium which cannot be made into water. Why do we think this is a good idea."

The potential energy from just the deuterium isotope of hydrogen (not *all* the hydrogen) in one gallon of water is equal to 300 gallons of gasoline. The E=mc^2 equation (Energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light) says in essence that a small amount of matter can be converted into a large amount of energy. (as shown in the forms of nuclear energy we already use) Yes it's finite, but the available energy in the barest fraction of the available fusion fuels on Earth will suffice for many thousands of years.

Unless you expect to consume energy at the rate of a star, you will NOT see any visible depletion in the amount of hydrogen on Earth if this can be made to work by one or more of the above methods.

Fusion catches fire

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:58:10 GMT

"A hydrogen fuel cell in your house would provide all your electricity, some or all of your hot water and a by-product of pure water, and would be powered by the methane gas from your sewer line."

A methane fuel cell isn't the same as one using free (as in not bound to any other element) hydrogen.

And how much methane do you think is available in the average sewer line? How many could use it at once?

(You *can* however, get emergency generators today, powered by conventional natural gas [which is mostly methane] from your utility, whose pressure will normally continue in a power failure...)

Fusion catches fire

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:03:53 GMT

"Maybe someone can explain if they are making a real sun or a theoretical "sun"? If it was a real sun, would it be too small for a gravitational collapse?"

You're quite right. Gravity is insignificant here. This is why magnetic, electrostatic or other forces are used to compress a plasma of fusion fuel to temperatures and densities long enough for fusion to occur. (though it's a bit more complicated with the Polywell approach) The plasma dissipates, the moment those forces are removed.

Fusion catches fire

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:21:23 GMT

" I'm no scientist..."

Forgive me, but it shows.

"...but the thought of this thing exploding sends shivers down my spine...Have they even thought that through ?"

Part of the reason successful controlled fusion hasn't happened yet is that it's very *difficult* to create and maintain the conditions under which it can happen. There is NO way this can run away from you as a fission reactor might, in a loss of cooling accident. *Stopping* it is all too easy. Stop feeding in fuel and/or turn off the magnetic or electrostatic fields or the lasers, depending yon how you're doing it. The plasma is all *too* happy to expand, cool and dissipate in a heartbeat...

BTW, we *already* have fusion (hydrogen) bombs, and even those took a great deal of engineering development and they only have to achieve fusion for a few brief (albeit intense) seconds, requiring an exploding fission trigger and a lot has to happen just right, in a *very* short time for those to work, as well.

Fusion catches fire

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:28:51 GMT

"If fusion is such a hallucination how come we have 100 trillion + stars in the sky?"

Bikini Atoll was no hallucination either, but we simply can *not* produce fusion the same way that stars (or bombs) do.

Consider: Birds are natural proof heavier-than-air flight is possible, but there are reasons that flying machines don't look or work quite like birds...

Fusion catches fire

Mike Puckett Charleston, WV — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:02:49 GMT

J. Overlin,

Where does the Hydrogen for the fuel cell come from? What process to produce the hydrogen does not consume more energy to first produce it?

Hydrogen only make sense if you have an uber-cheap electric generation source like Polywell.

Otherwise, you are just playing second-law of Thermodynamics shenanagans fooling yourself.

Fusion catches fire

Mike Puckett Charleston, WV — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:20:24 GMT

"I would like someone here to show me how we are going to (or currently) able to circumvent the basic law of conservation of energy in which we cannot gain more energy than what was put into it. "

Because Aaron,

You CAN convert MATTER into energy. E=MC^2 does not violate the second law of thermodynamics in an way.

Fusion is E=MC^2.

I am glad you are here to explain to the high energy Physicists how they are wasting their time.

Did you sleep thru physics?

Fusion catches fire

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:44:35 GMT

Thank you,Ripster, for answering my question. I believe I get the idea now.

Fusion catches fire

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:50:35 GMT

Also, thank you for your answer, Mr. Glover. As I said, I am not in any Physics classes yet, but this is an interesting subject, so I wanted to know more.

Fusion catches fire

Karl LeMay — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:34:33 GMT

Another real turd of a "science" article.

Science reporting in this country is a joke-- a mixture of gee-whiz marketing of techno-toys, dumbasses selling "science" to even dumber-asses, and straight out propaganda and dis-information.

Fusion catches fire

freedfrom pain in mo. — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:51:51 GMT

if we had all of this "free power" the pol's couldn't get money from us. they need us to feed them. so don't look for any useful power source until the game in washington changes.

Fusion catches fire

M. Report — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:44:30 GMT

"Promise little, but do much." - Old Japanese saying.

Dr. Nebel is quietly moving toward a next iteration
proof (or disproof) of principal machine; 2 years, $500M, all done.

The mainstream fusion approches are "pure" science;
they have nothing in their charter about commercial
use, i.e. producing and selling power for _money_.
Worse, if they could be made to work, the plants would be: "the largest structures ever built by Man, and insanely radioactive."

Dr. Bussard's legacy, on the other hand, is a 100MW
modular design, with little or no radioactive waste,
and direct conversion to electricity.

"Game Changer" my asymptote; This could, by itself,
produce enough economic hope, and scientific change,
to save us all from spending the rest of our lives in the 19th century.

Fusion catches fire

cyberbian — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 04:40:33 GMT

This may seem like an overly simplistic question, but what keeps the fuel feeder assembly from melting down if they get that thing to work on a susustainable basis? Wouldn't it just slag down anything on the planet from a large constant production of intense heat?

Is the output so small scale in comparison to a production device that it dosen't truly generate much heat?

Fusion catches fire

Bruce Gordon ,easton, md — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 04:43:46 GMT

Well well well I have read all your comments. Now let me tell you all about the REAL solution to the entire world's energy crisis. But before I do let me state that I am a mechanical engineer with my degree in power plant design and analysis+ energy conservation and conversion. Any takers out there?? Any other engineers?? Ok Well for startersman can't create energy only transform matter into energywhichreally is amatter of creating heat in the process. The absolute REAL solution to not only meet our current but projected needs for electricity will have to met largely by OTEC= Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion.I have been researching every form of energy production known to man for the last 35 years. If you take nuclear (20% currently), natural gas 10% coal 60% off the table beacause of their problems with nuclear waste and coal waste and CO2 output even optimistically ALL the rest of the renewables might supply only 30-35% in the future. The rest will have to come from OTEC whichwoulduse the greatest source of heat STORED on the planet which is in the oceans at the equator. These heat engines will use the delta T from the surface water to the miles deep cold ocean water to produce steam to drive a turbine to produce electricity at the platform to then produce either hydrogen or ammonia whichcouldbe then transported anywhere by ship to then be burned in newly designed power plants to burn either.( hydrogen will turn back to water and ammonia would produce more nitrogen neither of which would harm the planet any more. We could then start to reverse the effect of CO2 output by using finally more elec cars as well cut our oil consumption around the plant by more than half kill the nuke industry off before they kill everyone even with the current plants( By the way I used to work in relicensing of nuke plants and it is really a joke and the children at the NRC are as crooked as the industry,they are in bed with each other)and the coal industry well it is what it is you have coal flyash loaded with toxins and more CO2 output event thoughithas gotten way better it will never be totally gone, nor will natural gas. Andas for this fusion well we still all of us have to live with the terrorists and any kind of nuclear fuel willjust addmore fuel to the fire when it comes to anything nuclear so why make our world more challenged and less safe for future generations. Dont any ofyouthinkwehave already done enough damage to the planet. Lets use the KISS pricipal and go with OTEC finally and make the planet whole lot safer and cleaner for all of us now and for future generations not to be burdened with exotic means of electric generation. Just so everyone knows Lockhead Martin in
Norfolk Va is working on a mini OTEC plant but what is really neededisto quit wasting more time and money on all these other farfetched ideas suchas more fission plants and now fusion and really dump enough money into OTEC to make it work.If you are so inclined write your favorite congressman or senator and ask why they cantdump a few BILLION into OTEC and get it moving on a fast track. Lets face they are passing the money out like it was candy. OTEC WILL change the future of the entire planet and put the ARABS the coal and nuclear boys down and out and make our planet operate safely at least until the day comes that the SUN wont shine anymore................

Fusion catches fire

Bill Hensley — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:01:27 GMT

Alan,

Judging from the responses, there certainly seems to be a lot of confusion about the science of power generation. Maybe you should write another post to clear up some of the many misconceptions that have been voiced in these comments. Things like:

1. Does fusion power violate the conservation of energy?
2. Will we run out of water if we use hydrogen as fuel?
3. Does helium eventually turn back into hydrogen?
4. Can fuel cells produce unlimited cheap energy?

A science journalist's work is never done!

[ALAN ADDS: The more I think about it, the more I think it would be cool to do something more in-depth about fusion ... so hold that thought. I would say the answers here would be no, no, not without energy input, and it depends on what you mean by "cheap" and "unlimited."]

Fusion catches fire

Mike, MA — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:00:46 GMT

Aaron,
You might want to check your physics, becasue helium DOES NOT break back down into hydrogen without adding energy, therfore it will be very unlikely for it to eventually return to hydrogen. In the realm of Fission/Fusion, Iron is the balance point, all elements with an atomic number less than iron's release energy when fused, and require energy to break it apart. Anything with an atomic number greater than iron will release energy when broken apart, and requires energy to fuse. Heavier elements are believed to be the result of Supernovae.
Actually turning hydrogen into helium IS the point, its not adding an electron, its forcing 2 Protons together with enough force that it overcomes the repulsive forces of the 2 similarly charged protons. The resulting Helium's mass is slightly less than the 2 hydrogen atoms that extra mass is where the energy comes from.

[...]

Fusion catches fire

Aaron, SLC, UT — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:07:41 GMT

"You CAN convert MATTER into energy. E=MC^2 does not violate the second law of thermodynamics in an way."

Exactly my point Mike. You missed it completely for some reason. You said it yourself. Convert matter into energy does not equal "create" energy in the pure sense. You are transfering one form of stored energy (matter) into another form. Quite simple and you even understood the concept yet you thought I was arguing.

My real point is to warn people to be very careful of any person or company making a claim they are producing more energy than what they are putting into it. This breaks so many fundemental laws of thermodynamics that if they prove factual, it would require an almost total re-write of our currently understood laws of physics.

Perhaps you, Mike, should make sure you fully understand the ways one must get around the first, second and third law of thermodynamics to have a situation of true over-unity production. If you claim to know and understand physics then you already know it isn't possible.

Am I saying Fusion itself isn't possible? No, not at all as it already follows the laws of thermodynamics completely. There are many real world examples readily available for study.

Do I believe in the work these scientists are performing to try and achieve new forms of usable energy? I certainly do. Why would anyone think otherwise? As I said, my only point is making sure people understand the limits and laws of reality before ever claiming they are surpasing them. The people working for NIF are clearly operating within the bounds of those laws of nature but the article has a couple of references of companies claiming over-unity. That was where I warned caution.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in stating that I don't have issue with this new amazing NIF facility and the work it will perform so my apologies if I didn't make that clear.

Fusion catches fire

tom — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:52:14 GMT

to, aaron,ma you evidently do not understand the difference between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction.the balloon explosion you describe is a chemical reaction in which 2H2+O2=2 H2O.the energy released is the difference in the stability of the water vs hydrogen & oxygen. only electrons become shared. fusion is where deuterium (an isotope of hydogen, containing 1 proton, 1 neutron,1 electron)combines with another deuterium atom so that you now have a singe atom that contains 2 protons,2 neutrons,2 electrons,IE. HELIUM.the helium atom contains less mass than the two hydrogen atoms because of "mass defect", that mass difference is converted into energy by einsteins e=mc2.the energy release is nothing like your exploding balloon.also helium does not break down into hydrogen by any natural process.

Fusion catches fire

M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:52:25 GMT

<i>Meanwhile our atmosphere is loading up with carbon dioxide from that oh-so-easy combustion and we don't have 50 years to wait for fusion to take over while climate change fries our biosphere.</i>

Since the climate seems to be cooling while CO2 is rising the new theory is that below 350 ppm CO2 causes warming and above 350 ppm it causes cooling. This is based on the scientific fact that CO2 does what ever it needs to do to keep government money flowing.

In fact CO2 is a miracle gas. Not only can it perform warming or cooling as needed on earth but it also affects the number of spots on the sun by emitting invisible rays of electromagnetic energy that cool the outer layers of the sun and absorb magnetic energy. Which explains the current low value of the suns magnetic field. After all no other explanations have been offered so it must be CO2.

Fusion catches fire

Chris, S.Korea — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:26:59 GMT

Wow some people need to do some research. The reason "fission" isn't used as much is because there hasn't been a new reactor built in over 20 years. There is a whole new series of Generation IV Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) that would work light years beyond our current Light Water Reactors (LWR) and produce significantly less waste. Just the NRC won't approve anymore reactors to be built, and nobody wants to pump the initial capital into something that won't see returns for a decade or more.

The cool thing about most of this fusion stuff is that due to the nature for the reactions and materials involved, it completely bypass's most of the regulations and red-tape that fission reactors have to deal with. Fusion doesn't use uranium or plutonium, so their not subject to the nuclear proliferation laws.

Now for those people who don't understand E=MC^2. Basically energy and mass represent the same thing and are interchangeable. Mater is so energy dense its amazing. In fission we split large heavy atoms into smaller atoms, this process actually converts some of the mater into energy, as expressed through heat and radiation. In fusion we're taking small atoms and slamming them together to create larger atoms, again some of the mater is converted into energy.

Basically 1000g mater in, 998g mater out, 2g mater completely annihilated producing very large quantities of energy.

Fusion catches fire

Philip Montpetit QC — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:29:51 GMT

Let's keep our eye on the ball!!!
Quite apart from the economic perspective the biggest driver for continued, or better yet, accelerated effort on getting one of the many fusion efforts to work is environmental. That will be the true beneficiary of any success at obtaining fusion energy from the Boron or Deuterium cycles. (no long term radiation)
Anyone who has not seen the writing on the wall should perhaps take a stroll out here where I live (just at the edge of the Arctic Circle) and all doubt would vanish quickly as to the very real and very present effect of global warming.
Regardless of whether you believe that it is due to human disregard of the consequences of our burning fossil fuels or for whatever other reason, it should be clear that we simply cannot take ANY CHANCE that burning carbon based fuels is not implicated.
All arguments to the contrary are, at best, wishful thinking, but more likely the simple "bury head in sand" reaction of an animal overwhelmed by events it cannot control or even understand.
I have been following the efforts of the various groups that are trying to achieve sustainable and controllable fusion (some for over 20 years!!!) and I am confident that within five years at least one of these will break through. Not only that, it's more likely to be one of the 'upstarts', General Fusion, Polywell, LENR (not exactly an upstart), DPF, etc..

I only wish I could be contributing somehow, and I thank them for their courage and persistence (much too often in the face of irrational vindictiveness from people who for whatever reason detest those who refuse to follow the 'bury head in sand' strategy).

I'm betting on the winners.

Fusion catches fire

Axil Washington DC — Mon, 11 May 2009 06:27:23 GMT

To begin with, what the all fusion reactors currently under development have in common is this little known nuclear methodology called fluoride molten salt technology. This was conceived and perfected by the Idaho national lab (INL) back in the 1970’s and could offer the world an abundant source of carbon free electric power today, not years from now.

The Liquid fluoride thorium reactor (Lftr) has already been designed, prototyped and demonstrated to be safe and effective. But research on the Lftr was canceled to leave the field open for breeder reactor development when plutonium was important to the national defense, but now the government feels it is dangerous. In stead of fusion to produce nuclear heat, the Lftr burns nuclear waste; something we have plenty of.

In his open letter to President Obama, the climatologist Dr. Jim Hanson recommended the Thorium fuel cycle and the Lftr. Dr. Edward Teller, the father of Fusion, after a lifetime of work on every aspect of nuclear technology had at the last month of his life came to this conclusion in his final study: “the LFTR is the best of all possible reactor types”. (see http://www.geocities.com/rmoir2003/moir_teller.pdf)

The LFTR, a GEN IV reactor, which is currently in development in France, Japan, and Russia, is an elegant type of reactor that can compliment renewable energy by allowing for base load, load following, or peak power production. It can start up on any kind of nuclear fuel, bomb material, or nuclear waste product to produce very efficient, high temperature heat and at the same time breed more fuel in the bargain. This thrifty approach to nuclear energy greatly appeals to me, but I became even more interested in the LFTR when the details of a new patent were revealed by Dr LeBlanc (see below @ minute 53). It opens up the possibility of building a very compact but powerful reactor that can run for 30 years without refueling. With no danger of a core meltdown or runaway reaction, this air cooled reactor can be deployed anywhere and operated remotely in an unattended fully automated intrusion detecting mode and sited underground while it breeds self perpetuating new fuel within the thorium structure of the reactor itself.

The Lftr is highly proliferation resistant. In order to get to its fuel, U233 that has been produced inside the very solid metal walls of this 200 ton reactor 1800 degree, white hot containment vessel, a proliferator must destroy and disassemble the reactor, lift its heavy reactor core out of a 100 meter deep reinforced aircraft crash proof hole in the ground, then cut the thorium containment vessel up into small pieces while enduring heavy killing gamma radiation exposure, next reprocess these reactor pieces using isotopic separation since the U233 is denatured with enough U238 to make chemical separation of bomb grade U233 impossible, and do all this without being detected. Now, this is a tall order for any bad guy and may just be an impossible assignment.

The Lftr burns its fuel at 99.8 % efficiency. At the end of the service life of the Lftr, the reactor vessel is sent back to the factory where it is reduced to liquid fluoride salts that become the feedstock of the next new Lftr. This feedstock can only be used by the new Lftr and not for bombs. A few handfuls of waste products are held at the factory for a few hundred years to cool down before they are mined for the many precious elements contained within like platinum and iridium. Now that is what I call a safe, efficient and thrifty mode of operation!

I thank you for the opportunity to bring this little know nuclear technology to your attention.

To learn more see one of the following:

Aim High
http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh

What Fusion Wanted To Be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8

Liquid Fluoride Reactors: A New Beginning for an Old Idea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F0tUDJ35So

Fusion catches fire

Jon Brooks, Cleveland, Ohio — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:49:23 GMT

Excuse my imagination here but it wants to run wild for a few minutes while typing this. Could the focused power of the 192 lasers be used to compress a small amount of matter into a microscopic black hole? Specifically the ones where even if formed, they will evaporate in a few femtoseconds. Then could you not, feed that black hole a few atoms at a time just enough so that its evaporation rate vs feed rate can be adjusted such that it is continually evaporating and then use the 100% conversion of the energy of evaporation into useful heat, magnetism, electric charge..whatever? From what I have read, black holes that small when they evaporate essentially convert matter to energy at 100% efficiency. Possibly it might not be in a form easily captured to process to do useful work, but then again maybe it might. Then again I haven't done any calculations to see if the ergs of energy just to get the fuel into the micro black hole, might exceed the energy out even at 100% conversion. The answer might be to make it bigger, and thus more stable, but then we have a CERN consideration there too, since the black hole is stationary, and what happens if the containment lasers fail? LOL Oh well, wild imagination time over.

Fusion catches fire

Mark Oliver, Indianapolis, IN — Sat, 23 May 2009 05:15:22 GMT

A fission Integral Fast Reactor destroys radioactivity, unless it is neutron-less a fusion reactor makes radioactivity as it destroys whatever device is used to create it. Neutron-less fusion is thousands of times less efficient than fusion creating a high speed penetrating neutron flux.

Fusion catches fire

Blaine, Richmond, VA. — Sun, 24 May 2009 20:08:50 GMT

Myron writes "Every living creature since life began on Earth has had to deal with natural climate change. It has been cooling for the last 10 years even though CO2 levels have risen. CO2 levels are still just a third of what they have been in the past. Solar output is down, cosmic ray impacts are rising which is leading to cooling. But somehow man is responsible."
I have no idea where you're getting your "facts", Myron. First, the atmosphere has NOT been cooling for the last ten years, although some limited in scope studies may indicate that to be the case. Do some research instead of parroting the climate-change deniers. Further, ten years is barely measurable when you're comparing it to billions of years, ie. geologic time. Second, if CO2 levels are a third of what they've been in the past, remember that mammals hadn't yet evolved. If you want to go back to that time be my guest. Third, your last two sentences contradict your own claims by saying solar output is down but cosmic ray impacts are rising and cooling the planet; that seems a self-contradictory statement at best! As for CO2 levels, they haven't been this high since dinosaurs roamed the earth, and have NEVER risen at the current rapid and accelerating pace. So yes, we are responsible. Your argument seems similar to saying that we're almost certainly going to have a cataclysmic climate change eventually, anyway, so why wait for that inevitable day when we can make our very own apocalyse in the here and now! It's mind-boggling that anyone would really value humanity so little.

Fusion catches fire

Tom White — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:27:03 GMT

What worries me most re the allocation of enormously large amounts of resources to uncertain efforts at energy production is that there seems to be little or no concern as to the substantive irrationality of putting all of our eggs in the science of the future instead of addressing basic human needs (food, clothing, shelter, security, education and so on). Should anyone have cake, when not everyone has bread?

Fusion catches fire

Joe Whitehead, Waco, TX — Mon, 25 May 2009 05:42:44 GMT

Dang it I want my antimatter-powered dilithium reactors yesterday! Seriously, the biggest problems with all atomic energy sources has been the desire to make materials for weapons - which is redundant now that we're actually TAKING THEM APART!

Fusion catches fire

Alex, Colorado Springs — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:23:42 GMT

I don't believe in taking absolute positions in anything particularly science and the unknown, and I would caution the readership in siding with the loudest voices at the polar ends of this argument. That said, I am strongly in agreement with the notion that sustained fusion is not possible with technologies present and proposed. However, if I had to choose from amongst all the paths to the grail, it would be in inertial confinement fusion, and I find it astonishing that no one has mentioned Sandia Lab's "z machine." They are making quantum, albeit quiet, leaps in the pursuit of aneutronic fusion, and ultimately toward commercial power production, imho.

Fusion catches fire

Mike Peralta, Phoenix, AZ — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:38:08 GMT

As Edison said: Invention is
1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.

Keep trying different things.
Eventually some will work.

Si se puede!

Fusion catches fire

FPCreator2000 — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:04:05 GMT

Whether inertially confined, magnetically confined, or through the Polywell Device, fusion IS the future for mankind. When successful, this will be humanity's primary energy source, along with Solar, Wind, Water, and any other clean technologies that are out there, or will be there.

To the Oil barons, time is running out and so is the oil. To the critics of the technology, it might have not been feasible in the past, but this is not the past, and we are closer than before to an energy independent future. To the people who have come this far and only plan to go farther with this technology, thank you. Your efforts will insure a future for all of mankind. To the Government, the millions invested in these projects is chump change compared to the economic, military, and other high-ticket investments that have been handed money in the past. Not that money solves everything, but throw a billion dollars into one of these projects, and you might be surprised with the results.

Fusion catches fire

Robert W. Johnson, Wilmington, Delaware — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:42:42 GMT

What about CrossFire Fusor?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqHFowOge_M

Fusion catches fire

F. U. Sean, USA — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:53:09 GMT

Offer to fusion-optimists:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=179285096495