One step closer to using nuclear fusion as a new source of carbon free energy....

[a kennedy]

For the first time, a fusion device at the University of Wisconsin in Madison has generated plasma, inching one step closer toward using nuclear fusion as a a new source of carbon-free energy.
The university’s physicists and engineers have been building and testing the device at a lab in Stoughton for the last four years, which is referred to as the Wisconsin HTS Axisymmetric Mirror or WHAM. The magnetic mirror device became operational on July 15.
Researchers worldwide have been working for decades to harness energy from nuclear fusion reactions that power the sun and the stars. That reaction relies on heated plasma, which is a gas of hot ions and free-moving electrons. Cary Forest, a UW-Madison physics professor, said generating plasma is an exciting step.

https://www.wpr.org/news/uw-madison-one-step-closer-to-harnessing-the-power-of-the-sun-through-fusion-research

[GoreWon2000]

1. My engineer father taught me that nuclear power isn't green

because no one has figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. Nuclear fusion is still nuclear power and it still has waste.

[Gore1FL]

2. The waste in hydrogen fusion is helium. nt

[GoreWon2000]

3. My engineer father taught me

it's better to burn green hydrogen. That waste is water.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

6. When you BURN hydrogen (chemically), yes, the waste is water. 2H2 + O2 ---- 2H2O + heat (eg Hindenburg)

In a fusion reactor, hydrogen is not being burned. Hydrogen nuclei are undergoing a fusion reaction to form helium + energy. Very different from the fission reactions in common use today, where uranium nuclei are split to form radioactive waste nuclei some of which take millennia to break down.

[GoreWon2000]

10. Are you an engineer?

My engineer father had bachelors and masters degrees in engineering, more than 40 years of aviation and automotive engineering work experience and was a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers. My engineer father believed that burning green hydrogen was the answer, NOT nuclear power. Do you not remember the 3 mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear accidents? BTW, the fossil fuel currently in your car explodes very easily and quickly as well

[The Unmitigated Gall]

13. *Sigh* Congratulations for your father.

What do YOU understand?
I'm not an engineer, but yes, I studied physics, inorganic and organic chemistry in university.
You don't HAVE to be an engineer to understand the difference between BURNING hydrogen in oxygen, REACTING hydrogen in a fuel cell, and FUSING hydrogen in the sun's core, and hopefully someday in a clean reactor on Earth.
And, you don't HAVE to be an engineer to know the HUGE difference between hydrogen fusion and the uranium fission we use today.

[GoreWon2000]

14. No sorry but

non engineers don't have the expertise of engineers to know what fuels will work for cars, airplanes, trucks, etc and what the dangers are of nuclear power that the nuclear industry has spent decades trying to cover up/. Please don't think you know more about this than my engineer father did because you're showing that you don't.

[A HERETIC I AM]

24. Bullshit

Claiming that particular knowledge and “expertise” is the sole purview of engineers is absurd.

[GoreWon2000]

34. Your disrespect for engineering expertise that

you'll never have is offensive. It's like saying people who never went to medical school know more than the doctors who went to medical school and have decades of work experience. Reading out of a book isn't expertise. It's years of schooling and then decades of work experience that creates an expert. My father had it for engineering and is qualified to speak on the issue as an expert. You have no such engineering expertise and you never will. It's not possible that you have the level of engineering knowledge and engineering expertise that my engineer father had. That's why I'm challenging your inaccurate viewpoint.

[A HERETIC I AM]

37. LMAO! Are you and your engineer father the same person?

Because unless you are, you’re talking out of your ass.

You really are a piece of work, skippy.

This is becoming one of the funniest threads I’ve read in a long while.

[GoreWon2000]

43. There you go again with your disrespect for my father's engineering expertise

I continue to post the concerns that my engineer father taught me about nuclear power. You've had no such expert teaching. Your behavior and disrespect for my engineer father's engineering expertise is offensive. You keep repeatedly showing your lack of engineering expertise and knowledge on this issue. My engineer father's decades of engineering expertise totally disagrees with your uninformed view that's based on your lack of knowledge on the issue. You sound like a lobbyist for the nuclear power industry. Disrespect for expertise is one of the reasons our country is in so much trouble today.

[A HERETIC I AM]

50. Want to know what is really amusing?

I haven’t said ONE SINGLE WORD about nuclear fusion or fission reactors. Not one.

You have absolutely no idea whether or not I hold an advanced degree in anything. None!

Look, we are all very happy for your father and his engineering prowess.

But that’s not you, is it?

You really need to learn to lighten up and realize when someone is, as the Brits are fond of saying, taking the piss out of you.

[GoreWon2000]

54. Again, your disrespect for my father's engineering expertise is offensive

Your posts are derogatory towards my father's engineering expertise and that's why I'm again calling it out. Were you so disrespectful towards your teachers in school?

[A HERETIC I AM]

56. You just go right ahead and keep beating that dead horse, OK?

Here, I found a picture of you.

[AllyCat]

78. I don't think they are disrespecting you. But this is new work.

What I have always heard since I was small (not an engineer) is that FUSION is completely different than fission. It does not generate radioactive waste. There is a big difference between the two.

Maybe fusion doesn't/won't work for the automotive industry, but it would possibly work in other applications (electricity generation, heating, industry, etc.).

It's an interesting idea and I hope they can make this work. The sun...and our own fusion reactors. That would be amazing.

[Blue Full Moon]

87. Not all engieering is interchangable

[AllyCat]

77. Come on, be nice please.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

31. I never SAID I knew more than your father.

And I never advocated for our current fission-based reactors.
In a bright future where nuclear fusion as a commercial energy source is perfected, our current fission reactors will be obsolete, and that's a good thing.
But there seems to be a lot that YOU don't understand, and my suggestion for you, as a relatively new poster, is that before you jump down somebody's throat sideways here you carefully evaluate what they're trying to say. I offered a friendly and respectful clarification of the difference between combusting hydrogen versus the fusion of hydrogen nuclei, versus the fission of uranium.
You threw it back in my face.
Whatever, congratulations to your father, I doubt that for one second he would have had any problem with what I tried to say here.

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. Out of curiosity...

Was your father an engineer?

[GoreWon2000]

16. Yes je was

My engineer father had bachelors and masters degrees in engineering, more than 40 years of aviation and automotive engineering work experience and was a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He was a genuine engineering expert.

[A HERETIC I AM]

20. So....

You’re saying he WAS an engineer, right? An Automotive engineer?

The kind of engineer that does engineering on cars and planes, (two rather distinct engineering disciplines) presumably. As well as the kind of engineer that requires mentioning that rather common vocation repeatedly with every single post?

Was your father THAT kind of engineer?

And is he standing there, telling you what to type, this engineer father of yours?

[GoreWon2000]

27. My engineer father's engineering resume and engineering expertise speaks for itself

Your words make it clear that you're not an engineer so that there's no way you know more about this issue than my engineer father knew. I highly recommend that you leave this issue to the actual engineers.

[A HERETIC I AM]

29. My natural engineering mind tells me....

That you don’t really understand a single iota of what your engineer father allegedly knew and it’s also clear that you are NOT an engineer.

Since your engineer father is clearly not doing the typing on this thread, perhaps you should sit this one out from here on.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. I highly recommend YOU leave it to engineers specializing in nuclear energy and fusion

Your interpretation of your father's opinion on something outside of his field of expertise is laughable.

Interpretation of an inexpert opinion.

Saying that his opinion has huge weight because he is an "engineer" is like saying an orchestral cellist can automatically sing heavy metal because, hey, it's all music.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. But you are not an engineer, right? Yet you think your filtering of daddy's non-expert opinion is engineering wisdom

As if a mining engineer's opinions on distributed server engineering outweigh computer engineers.

As if when somebody's parent was a college quarterback, then they can interpret their parent's musings on competitive rowing and expect them to be received as if full of gravitas.

[Metaphorical]

81. To clarify

There are two primary fusion paths:
D + T → He + n. (Deuterium + Tritium, both isotopes of Hydrogen, produce Helium and neutrinos)
and
H + H → D + e+ + v (Two hydrogen atoms produce deuterium plus a positron + a neutrino)

the latter is the primary kind of fusion that occurs in the sun.

There are two issues with the first: Tritium is comparatively rare, and the neutrinos are quite energetic, so they do cause damage to containment facilities, but this damage isn't necessarily radioactive, and while deuterium and tritium are both radioactive, they have minimal energy in their byproducts. There are other fusion pathways at the low end of the periodic table, but even when radioactive these products have very low energy, well below the ambient level of radioactive isotopes in nature.

Fission, on the other hand, involves highly radioactive compounds - Uranium 235, U238, Plutonium 239,240,241, Thorium and so forth. These are naturally occurring, but they produce energy by decaying (breaking apart), which releases both high energy beta particles (electrons), high energy neutrons, and quite frequently other decay products. These products cause significant biological damage, and plutonium is also extraordinarily toxic. Moreover, these decay products are frequently flung against the walls of containment vehicles, embedding into the walls and continuing to decay. U238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years, meaning that half of the uranium that the Earth captured still remains and is about the age of the solar system. Most U238 exists primarily in the Earth's core (because it is VERY dense, much denser than iron or lead, but some of it cycles regularly through the mantle to the surface. It is in fact the thing that keeps the Earth's core liquid, and drives much of the tectonic activity on the surface.

Fission and Fusion are NOT the same thing, and even discussions about radioactivity need to be understood relative to that. There are many, many isotopes that are radioactive, including two isotopes of hydrogen and six isotopes of helium. Most have half-lives of fractions of a second, and are generally very weak, at least at the low end of the periodic table. For all intents and purposes, fusion is not radioactive in any meaningful way.

[Sympthsical]

40. Nuclear fusion and nuclear fission are not the same things

You don't need advanced degrees to understand the difference between the two and the kinds of byproducts they produce.

A high school chemistry or astronomy class will do.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

84. Are you from engineer loins too?

[Sympthsical]

85. No, spleen mitosis

Just popped out fully formed as my mother vented.

At least that's what my father, a famous anatomist with three master's and an associate's, told me.

[ProfessorGAC]

45. The Other Poster Is Accurate

I'm a retired scientist with a PhD in Physical Organic Chemistry.
The other poster's description of fusion is 100% correct and either you or your father got something confused.
I had many engineers working for me over my 43 years. They reported to me. So I'll presume that makes my credentials sufficient.

[GoreWon2000]

52. Nuclear industry covering up the waste dangers

Both nuclear fusion and nuclear fission generate nuclear waste. Know one has figured out what to do with the waste. The nuclear industry is continuing to cover up the danger just like the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. This is what my engineer father who was an expert in fuels taught me. People who aren't engineers don't have the expertise that engineers have. I find the disrespect for engineering expertise offensive and that's why I'm calling it out.

[ProfessorGAC]

68. Fusion Does Not

You're wrong & you should give it up.
The nuclear industry has nothing to do with this.
First, there are no commercial fusion electors so they have nothing to conceal.
Second, fusion is thermonuclear, not nuclear so the industries, eventually, won't be the same.
Third, what you're being told is from theory & principle. And, the understanding of how fusion works, in a star for instance, has been solid for around 90 years.
There's nothing to conceal.
You need to wave the white flag.

[orthoclad]

71. Hindenburg...

Notice that the flames were ABOVE the craft - hydrogen rises. The coating of the bag burned and may have been the worst contributor. People survived the accident. How many people survive jetliner crashes, like the hundreds who Boeing killed with their cheap software fix of a mechanical problem.

There are many good uses of hydrogen. I'd love to see airships come back.

All power sources will pollute, just from the scale of the infrastructure required. Fusion would be good, but it's still distant. Electrolysis of hydrogen from water is a simple procedure which could be implemented now. I did it 60 years ago with a kid's chemistry set equipment. We powered Apollo with hydrogen fuel cells, 55 years ago. The tech is there already. Efficiencies are improving.

Conservation of energy should also be a big part of the mix, but since the pile-on of Carter and his sweater we kind of forgot about it.

[Disaffected]

9. I'd much rather have the helium,

it being a much more valuable commodity than water.

BTW, fusion machines will also generate "waste", that being in the form of radioactive elements generated by the intense neutron flux of a fusion reactor (at least with the fusion reactions that are the least difficult to achieve). The level of such radioactive waste is however orders of magnitude lower than that generated by fission reactors and, with shorter decay times and much more readily contained.

[GoreWon2000]

25. Water is the least harmful.

This issue is best left to the engineers rather than people who aren't engineers.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. Rather than yourself, repeating your interpretation of an inexpert opinion outside of your father's field. . . . nt

[GoreWon2000]

36. I'm going by what my engineer father taught me about nuclear power

It's amazing that people who aren't engineers think they know more than the engineers. You don't and you never will. I'm curious to know if you're always so disrespectful towards expertise you'll never have?

[Sympthsical]

42. You're misunderstanding your father's explanation

And kind of rudely and insistently so.

Your father taught you about nuclear fission - the breaking down of an element that results in radioactive waste.

Fusion - different from fission - is the combining of hydrogen atoms to form helium. Mass loss results in energy (because E = mc^2).

There are no radioactive byproducts. Just helium, which is useful for us anyway. That's why people have been pursuing fusion so vigorously all this time. Because it's an extremely clean and limitless source of energy.

[GoreWon2000]

48. You're wrong again

There's still nuclear waste involved with fission so it's still an issue that no one knows what to do about. The nuclear power industry is continuing to cover this ugly fact up as they've done for decades. It looks like you've drunk their Kool-Aid in addition to not being an engineer yourself. You sound like a lobbyist for the nuclear power industry. You don't understand that engineering is so much more than book reading. It's called years of engineering work experience that you don't have. BTW, again as my engineer father taught me, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and green hydrogen is a limitless source of green energy.

[Sympthsical]

59. My father was a dock worker

And he taught me how to know when a load of something was coming in.

Thanks, dad.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. So. 1) You're a perfect student, 2) You're a nuclear engineer, 3) You're a nuclear physicist, or

4) You filtered opinion of your father's over-broad statement is worth less than the electrons you rented to print it on.

[Disaffected]

58. Why are you assuming that I am not an engineer?

You are making silly, uniformed comments on the differences between hydrogen combustion, hydrogen fusion and nuclear fission, your father's comments not withstanding.

As others have amply pointed out, you are misinterpreting your father's comments on the matter or, your father, being an engineer or not, is ill-informed.

BTW, your continuing referral to your father as an engineer and therefore an expert is a logical fallacy (i.e. appeal to authority).

[AllyCat]

79. This lab is in Dane County. They are definitely engineers and scientists.

They have been working on this for a long time and Wanker tried to kill it.

[dem_4_lyfe]

21. Hydrogen for combusting comes from fossil fuels and is very greenhouse gas heavy

You're spouting right-wing talking points.

Deuterium for fusion comes from the ocean.

Sorry, but your father doesn't know what he is talking about.

I did my chemistry postgrad at Berkeley.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

46. Not all of it, and decreasing as time goes forward. . . . . nt

[asm128]

60. Just to clarify

Not all of which, exactly? Only because the poster mentioned both fossil fuels and Deuterium, so I'm wondering what you were referring to?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

62. Most H2 is fossil fuel derived now, but will be less in the future as green electricity is used to electrolyze H2O

Note that H2 has lots of problems with storage, and as a derivative energy carrier it is less efficient than direct energy sources. However it does have some advantages in portability despite low energy density, compared to heavy batteries. But I'm not an expert on those issues.

[asm128]

66. Gotcha

Thank you for the clarification

[Tickle]

22. My father was a

blue collar worker. We never had that talk

[GoreWon2000]

5. BTW, I love your forum name!

15 of my more than 20 years spent volunteering on dem election campaigns everything from local state legislative campaigns to Presidential campaigns was spent in Florida. I used to know a number of the Florida Gore 2000 campaign people. Our country suffers so terribly today because of what happened in Florida in 2000 with Jeb/Harris and GOP SCOTUS.

[Diraven]

82. Unfortunately it also produces neutrons

Which eventually turn the containment vessel walls into radioactive waste. Still far less waste than fission reactors though.

[dem_4_lyfe]

7. Nuclear waste is far less of a threat that green house gases

[GoreWon2000]

11. Please tell that to the people in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Your claim has no basis in fact. My father was an engineer and had the engineering resume and expertise to have the view he had.

[arissa]

17. How many people died in those two crises?

You do realize that, by some estimates, more than 8 million people die every year from breathing fossil fuel pollution?

[GoreWon2000]

23. Thousands have died from Chernobyl

caused by cancer due to radiation exposure. The same will likely be true for Fukushima because of the radiation exposure. Multiply that by all of the nuclear reactors around the world. Let's also not forget the threat of terrorism against nuclear power plants. Look at Putin in Ukraine threatening Ukrainian power planets.
BTW, I'm well aware of the deaths fossil fuel is causing. My engineer father was one of the earliest people I'm aware of to start sound the alarm about the threat of human caused climate change. I'm well aware of my engineer father sounding the alarm about the danger of nuclear power. You sound like a lobbyist for the nuclear power industry and you're not an engineer like my father so you don't have his decades of engineering expertise which is very different from reading out of a book.

[A HERETIC I AM]

26. I'm still not clear about....

Whether or not your father was an engineer.

Can you restate that a couple dozen more times, please?

Just want to make sure everyone gets it.

[GoreWon2000]

28. I've stated it numerous times

so you should now know it. Your words make it clear once again that you're not an engineer. I'm curious to know if you're always so disrespectful towards expertise you clearly don't have that disagrees with your viewpoint?

[GoreWon2000]

35. You continue to show your disrespect

for engineering expertise that you'll never have. Your disrespect is offensive and that's why I'm calling it out.

[A HERETIC I AM]

39. So?

Be offended. Nothing happens. You’ll be fine.

It’s not like you will wake up with leprosy tomorrow.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. Tell us again how automotive expertise makes your father better than nuclear engineers and physicists. . . .nt

[GoreWon2000]

49. My father had aviation and automotive engineering work experience

He was an expert in fuels. My engineer father well understood the dangers of nuclear power and its toxic waste. The nuclear industry is acting just like the fossil fuel and tobacco industries in covering up the dangers involved. You sound like a lobbyist for the nuclear power industry and their cover up of the dangers of nuclear power in addition to the fact that you're not an engineer,

[A HERETIC I AM]

55. The name "Bernardo de La Paz" is Portuguese for...

“Master Engineer in all things”

[Bernardo de La Paz]

64. Read again. You are fantasizing what you want to see. I have written nothing in this thread about nuclear power

But yet you make stuff up. ** poof ** goes your last shred of credibility.

You sound like a lobbyist for the nuclear power industry and their cover up of the dangers of nuclear power in addition to the fact that you're not an engineer,

You know nothing about my engineering expertise or training. But making stuff up has not been a barrier for you as your post #49 shows.

Is your father dead? You seem to use past tense referring to him.

What is your "profession", if you have one?

Stop.

[dem_4_lyfe]

19. Local accident vs. Global disaster

not even comparable.

[Blue Full Moon]

88. Actually land around chernobyl can be farmed

What happened in Japan was an epic disaster. There were 2 plants one the planner doubled the safety and you don't hear about it because it stayed safe. Fukushima the planner just met requirements.
Chernobyl is just Russia being Russia. Good enough.

[EdmondDantes]

18. It has much much less waste than nuclear fission.

Your dad's nuclear power is very different than this technology.

[republianmushroom]

4. Awesome

[Disaffected]

8. Not a very big step.

Fusion devices has been generating plasma for decades now but the elusive goal of generating a plasma that produces more energy than it consumes remains unrealized. This particular approach is a variation on other magnetic fusion containment machines but in itself does not seem, at least yet, to offer anything better than other reactors.

[arissa]

12. Actually they have achieved producing more energy than consumed

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/climate/nuclear-fusion-energy-breakthrough-replicate-climate/index.html

[Disaffected]

63. Oh, now you've got me going... :)

The results of the National Ignition facility laser fusion device have been widely miss-reported by both the media and, the facility itself (although in the NIF's case, more a significant lack of clarity).

The NIF correctly reported that the fusion energy generated by the plasma exceed the energy input to the plasma (by a factor or 3 or 4 IIRC). However, and this is a v big however, the energy input to the plasma (by the device's high power, pulsed lasers) was far smaller than the energy required to energize (or "pump" ) the lasers. and by a factor of, IIRC, several hundred.

The upshot is that the energy required to power the device was far larger than the energy generated and it was therefore no-where near to reaching the elusive goal of even energy breakeven let alone generating useful net energy.

The device has other daunting issues with it's potential to generate net energy. For one, the lasers generate a lot of heat (which is what most of the energy input to the device winds up as), take a long time to cool off and therefore can only be fired about once per day. There is nothing on the horizon AFAIK that will solve that particular issue. Another is the horrific cost of the device (many $ billion).

I don't believe the NIF was ever intended to be a viable source of fusion energy but was and is much more an R&D device originally intended for thermo-nuclear (hydrogen) bomb development.

[edhopper]

38. Still 10 years away?

Like it was in the 70s when I took a college course on Nuclear Energy?

[sarisataka]

51. It sounds like a good advancement to me

But if only we had an expert to help clarify the benefits for us. Maybe someone whose father is an engineer...

[A HERETIC I AM]

53. ...

[AllyCat]

80. Stop. Please be nice.

[Tikki]

57. The equipment used in this process will be needed to be replaced often as to the nature

of the temperatures achieved.
A long-recognized drawback of fusion energy is neutron radiation damage to exposed materials, causing swelling, embrittlement and fatigue.
This will be expensive and TAX PAYERS will pay for this if it goes into PUBLIC use.
Maintenance, safety and disposal procedures will be needed and cannot be overlooked for public safety.

Nuclear is expensive..maybe too expensive for Tax Payers to bear.

Tikki

[Disaffected]

67. Hence the efforts into "aneutronic" fusion.

Eg. hydrogen-boron fusion. No neutrons generated, at least by the primary reaction.

This method has another important advantage - the energy generated is in part in the form of charges particles (helium nuclei rather than neutrons which have no electrical charge). Such has the potential of direct conversion of the fusion energy to electricity rather than going with the conversion of heat generated by the neutrons to electricity by the conventional route of boilers/steam turbines/rotary generators.

Problem is though, hydrogen/boron fusion is much more difficult to achieve than deuterium/tritium fusion and chances of ever exceeding breakeven are therefore even smaller.

[Disaffected]

83. Yup, and take a look at ITER.

$25 billion and counting.

The device will be furthermore a long way from a commercially viable reactor even if it works as designed. The next phase of the project (called "Demo&quot will supposedly be a demonstration reactor capable of grid connection/operation but, its development is promising to be just about as daunting and expensive as ITER itself, mainly involving things to extract the fusion energy (ITER has no way of doing that), building it so it can be maintained (ITER for instance has no means of replacing a plasma confinement super conducting magnet, which are prone to failure, without dismantling the whole shebang) and, self-generating sufficient tritium fuel to operate the thing (there are no significant naturally occurring sources of tritium and it has to be manufactured by nuclear means).

Moreover, there are serious doubts that such reactors would be able to generate the amount of tritium they would consume. The only other way to generate required amounts would be in fission reactors which adds another massive layer of cost and complexity plus fission nuclear waste disposal issues.

[Bettie]

61. Y'know, as cranky as I've been the 24 or so hours

this thread is cracking me up.

Also, good to see advances in this. Maybe the US will choose the Star Trek future over the Mad Max one....that's where my beloved husband says we're at crossroads of.

[MineralMan]

65. The thing is that for decades, one after another hot potential fusion experiment

has made the news. It's always touted as "one step closer." And yet, we still don't have a sustainable fusion reaction that generates more power than it uses to contain the reaction.

So, I'm unimpressed with yet another "exciting demonstration."

There's nothing on the near horizon regarding fusion.

[Disaffected]

69. Sadly true.

Some of the hype and promotion of fusion R&D approaches IMO scam level and I wonder if the governments, billionaires and venture capital funds actually understand what they are investing in.

[MineralMan]

70. No, they don't know what they're investing in.

More Blue Sky, INC. projects. Very promising. Just a few more tests are needed. Get in early and reap the rewards.

Oldest story in the books. Whether it's flying cars or fusion power generation, it's all the same thing. Wow them with science and they open up their wallets, thinking they'll get in on the "ground floor." But that elevator never goes to the top.

Theoretically, fusion sounds great. In reality, though, the amount of force required to contain the reaction always is either impossible or uses more power than can be harvested.

I've been reading about flying planes and fusion projects for decades. I'm still driving a car, though, and using electricity generated by burning some fossil fuel. Odd, isn't it?

[Disaffected]

72. Reminds me a little of the dot com craze...

[MineralMan]

74. Well, people did take advantage of that.

But, the internet was real. There were real opportunities there.

[MineralMan]

75. But the internet was real.

[LAS14]

73. Wait, wait! Did you mis-post? Shouldn't this be about Kamala Harris???? nt

I tried to put in the subject. Is there a way to do that?

BTW - I'm happy to hear about the break through.

[AllyCat]

76. I pass by this lab several times a week. It is amazing this is happening so close!

What a fabulous way to generate power if we can make it work!!

[Blue Full Moon]

86. Been worked on for a long time.

Yes it is good news. They haven't implemented fussion, because they haven't got worked out how to charge for it. The plans for new power plants NRC are safest yet. They have mini plants that can provide power to underdeveloped countries. That the cell is interchangeable. Iter was being researched. Seen an article that China has developed a plant that can't have a melt down. Fuel can be recycled. Fussion none. Depleted uranium is less assay than the tons per mile in the ground. Nuclear isn't owned by fossil fuel companies. Those companies give to Green Peace to protest nuclear.