Nuclear fusion in 5 yrs?
Renewed hope for nuclear fusion
Magnetized Target FusionCourtesy Los Alamos fusion energy sciences Nuclear fusion has been "just around the corner" for more than 50 years. Fusion reactions occur in the sun and in hydrogen bombs. Tremendous quantities of energy can result from the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium.
VCs bet big money on fusion power futures
Wealthy investors in California are betting hundreds of millions of dollars that the difficulties of producing power with fusion may soon be solved. The CEO of Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital thinks that "Within five years, large companies will start to think about building fusion reactors." Chrysalix invested in General Fusion, a Canadian company that says it has found a way to hurdle many of the technical problems surrounding fusion.
The company's ultimate plan is to build small fusion reactors that can produce around 100 megawatts of power. The plants would cost around $50 million. That could allow the company to generate electricity at about 4 cents per kilowatt hour, making it competitive with conventional electricity.c/net News.com
Magnetized Target Fusion
Using a technique called Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), a current within a plasma containing lithium creates a magnetic field which allows it to be squeezed . The resulting temperature spike breaks down
the lithium into helium and tritium. Tritium, an unstable form of hydrogen, is separated and then mixed with deuterium, another form of hydrogen. The two fuse and make helium, a reaction that releases energy that can be harvested.
For updates check this General Fusion Inc. wiki.
Your Comments, Thoughts, Questions, Ideas
Explore
Recent comments
Subscribe
Connect with Science Buzz on Facebook and Twitter.
You can also subscribe to our RSS feed using any newsreader software.
I think our country already have enought electrict power. We need something els, something that could replace oils.
agreed
i agree. we do need to find different sources for fuel.
But how can we find these different sources for the fule?
personally i think that the idea of using nuclear power is great but the question is what are we going to do with all of the left over materials? also keep in mind that the heat that is produced from the nuclear reactors can be used for other uses such as heating water for your houses and could also be used to help produce hydrogen fuel which could be the way that the auto industry wants to go.
IBI Call it what you want IBI
I AGREE WITH WHAT THEY WERE SAYNG I THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO FIND DIFFERENT RESOURCES FOR FUEL.......
if electricity is so abundant why is my electric bil $450 dollars a month... also, imagine enough electricity to convert everything to electric motors and still have enough to give to 3rd world countries.
ALSO... bring down the price of manufacturing positrons (antimatter particles) by 100 fold.
i would bet that the bill you are referring to is your energy bill, which includes your gas bill, which includes your heating. and it's cold in minnesota. so that's why.
I did an experiment never before in science for safe nuclear FUSION- yes- clean fusion- i dont want your money- just replicate my experiment yourself and verify fusion reactions to prove my statement I have been making on this net for 11 STRAIGHT MONTHS- i solved the energy crisis-
solomon azar
noblefuse-
teslaphiles- take at least a 500,000 tesla coil and resonate it upon the dielectric of heavy water- not free air- but the fuel itself- heavy water- a perfect retrofit for EVERY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT-
I've read their paper and have to say that, although they at least did a minimum of testing a control of hydrogen, they DIDN'T do a control with no applied acoustic field. 2000 neutrons is not much flux to work with and to make the conclusion that it's from the addition of an applied acoustic field is not appropriate. I would have been more interested in their work if they had done neutron tests with the acoustic field off as anyone who has conducted z-pinch experiments knows that they will indeed produce fusion neutrons (presumably knock-on, although that too is debated). Bad science to not do that test, very bad science.
I think mass production of hydrogen is more reasonable source of fuel than bothering our brain in nuclear fusion which has no definite way of disposing its waste...we all know it's extremely hazardous.
Post new comment