Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-05-2002, 03:32 PM | #11 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,547
|
when I talked with a guy at the university of Texas a while ago, he showed me a plot which had a rather linear progression towards the year 2030, as the year in which we would be able to have a net positive energy generation.
|
08-09-2002, 03:19 AM | #12 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Middlesbrough, England
Posts: 3,909
|
Quote:
Boro Nut |
|
08-09-2002, 08:31 AM | #13 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,834
|
I would be surprised if there was a commercially viable system in existence in thirty years. I have doubts about whether sustained nuclear fusion is even possible at a scale small enough to be commercially viable. I would be less suprised by a theoretical physicist establishing that the theoretical minimum size of a sustainable nuclear fusion reaction was an output equal to a continual stream of A-bombs (too large to be commercially viable), than I would be by someone actually developing a commercially viable fusion reactor.
|
08-11-2002, 03:36 PM | #14 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: WV
Posts: 4,369
|
Hey, but we already have sustained fusion. It's occurring as we speak just 93 million miles away...
|
08-12-2002, 02:18 PM | #15 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,834
|
Quote:
|
|
08-12-2002, 02:27 PM | #16 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,369
|
Doesn't prove anything.... would we be able to see a small, sustained fusion reaction in deep space? Probably not. Hell we have enough trouble seeing gas giant planets.... much less a sub-planetary sized fusion reaction.
Yes it would be bright but we're talking about enormous distances here. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|