Yes, I did. I also didn't omit this part: Initial development costs are always substantial and having an official Mint at our disposal is what helped us get into fission in two terms.
Please reread my post - that statement was included. They have been working on fusion power for 50 years. How many decades (centuries) do you consider "initial development"?
Luckilly global warming is hype, so no worries there. Alternative energy may cost us hundreds of billions a year, but one day it may produce the amount of energy we could get out on ANWAR. Think of how happy the moose will be that they got to keep their 2000 acres, even if it costs 100,000s of acres for alternative energy use, like in the wetlands FPL is being forced to level to make way for expensive solar panels. Apparently, only barren tundra matters to the left, kill all the wetlands you need for solar. No need for population drops either, or mass killing.
It could have happened in two terms, but it involves the general welfare instead of the general warfare.
Of course. Fortunate that we have economics to describe the effect of all those changes. History shows us that the economy was affected when we hit $1/gal back in the late-70's during the other resource scarcity fears. Now its $4/gal? Sure. Give it a few years, it'll be $6. Or $8. Economics covers this as well. To heck with just prior, some of us know better then to wait that long. You should join the masses who plan much farther out in advance! Join the legions of the forward thinking!
What are you rambling on about? Or, how many countries are involved in the development fusion? http://www.world-nuclear.org/WNA/About-the-WNA/WNA-Membership/ Do the European countries put warfare above welfare? What do you know about what is required to initiate and maintain fusion? Have we created fusion reactions that put out more energy than put in, before this?
Like it has been in Europe for years? To what benefit? Has Europe developed alternative transportation fuels? - - - Updated - - - Like it has been in Europe for years? To what benefit? Has Europe developed alternative transportation fuels?
You think fusion is as easy as fission? That the only problem is the lack of development dollars? You think all the organizations competing on fusion are in some grand conspiracy? Wow.....
Yes, fusion can't be any more difficult than fission; and, it only requires sufficient funding to accomplish, much like anything else that is capital intensive, much like Hoover Dam, Fission, and now fusion. We could have had fusion last millennium, but our wars on abstractions didn't seem to require it.
Um . . . have you looked up what's involved in creating a controlled and sustainable fusion reaction? We might at last be on the verge of creating the necessary technology (and then again, maybe not) but as 'simple' as dealing with fission reactions as far as the technological challenges go, it is not.
Not at all; all we really needed to do was "throw money at it" and wait for advances in the appropriate technologies to be discovered. Our problem is we can't find a war that doesn't need weapons of micro or mass destruction.
Really? The only "difficulty" in achieving fission is refining uranium 235. put enough powder on the floor and sweep it together and it will put out lots of heat. Keep pushing it together, and the radiation level climbs enough to push it apart. The Manhattan project was about overcoming that radiation pressure and keeping fissionable material together long enough for a chain reaction. We have a simple way to achieve fusion. Nuclear detonation creates the pressure required to convert heavy hydrogen into helium. It is called a hydrogen bomb, and we can build hydrogen bombs so big, their destruction is limited by the horizon (the blast doesn't follow the curvature of the earth). The difficulty is fusion suitable for power generation. Please explain how simple that is.
Sure; we have advanced from the Iron Age. It really is that simple even if the private sector still hasn't "earned" a profit motive to even go to the moon, yet.
Fission was just as difficult back then, and not only did the US learn about uranium, which even some States don't have in our modern times, we even discovered more about plutonium. All we really need is another Manhattan Project for fusion and save ourselves the cost of a war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp6HW3rOMpM You have your answer regarding Socialism getting stuff handled when Capitalism is to lazy without a profit motive in the first ten minutes if you don't want to watch all forty-five minutes.
Fuels? No. But they do GREAT on price to make sure their citizens are properly "encouraged" to think the way TPTB demand!
Because, for one, it never occurred to me; and two, it may be too much to expect from every consumer even if they don't keep and bear Arms.
To expensive right now. Micro-generation using natural gas is much better, and cheaper. The fuel for many fuel cells anyway is natural gas, as soon as a fuel cell is cheaper than the ability to micro-generate electricity, fine, but it still comes down to plentiful natural gas, and a distribution system built out across a fair amount of the United States already.
Hydrogen is nothing but a method of storing energy, and a bad method at that (too much space per kilowatt hour), you still have the inefficiency of creating, and using it (fuel cells are 45% or so efficient). Natural gas generates half the CO2 as coal for the same kilowatt hours. Utility power is 55% efficient at creating electricity, partially due to line drop, but mostly due to Carnot efficiency. Co-generation recovers most of that lost efficiency, space and water heating with no increase in CO2. So, put a natural gas generator in each home, so it generates it own power. That can be done with existing technology, and for very little cost.
the new toyota sedan which comes into production has hydrogen fuel cell technology and toyota says it has plans to have an attachment so that it can be hooked into the home as backup power...reports say it can produce enough power to run a home for a week, I have no idea how much a tank of hydrogen would cost though...
why have any co2 emissions, hydrogen technology produces zero emissions...I see potential for hydrogen fuel cell technology to destroy the fossil fuel industry...
Do some research. We were working on uranium in 1934, and knew about U235 and Plutonium in 1939. Even Einstein knew the physics well enough to know a bomb could be made. Are there too few companies working on fusion? The US alone has spent $29B on fusion. You can rant about how cheap that is compared to the cost of energy - but if $29B buys a lot of scientists, modeling, equipment, and experiments. We still have no idea how to reach break even. How will doubling or tripling the amount assure a break through?
