Quote (Thor123422 @ Sep 7 2015 06:28pm)

Sure would be, but won't be around for a long time to come

Quote (card_sultan @ Sep 7 2015 05:49pm)

I know in typical fission nuclear reactors, they use heavy water not only as a coolant but as well as a moderator to help in thermonuclear reaction. Since a fusion reactor would use plasma as a thermal source instead of nuclear rods + heavy water, it is theoretically much safer and since the hydrogen based elements combined are Deuterium (Heavy hydrogen) and Tritium (hydrogen-3) , no uranium is used and a country (such as Iran) would have no need for processing things that could be used to make a bomb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#cite_note-ReferenceA-15

Accident potential[edit]
There is no possibility of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor resulting in major release of radioactivity to the environment or injury to non-staff, unlike modern fission reactors. The primary reason is that the requirements for nuclear fusion differ greatly from nuclear fission: fusion requires extremely precise and controlled temperature, pressure, and magnetic field parameters for any net energy to be produced, and a far smaller amount of fuel. If the reactor suffered damage or lost even a small degree of required control, fusion reactions and heat generation would rapidly cease.[164]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Energy capture
There are several proposals for energy capture. The simplest is using a heat cycle to heat a fluid with fusion reactions. It has been proposed to use the neutrons generated by fusion to re-generate a spent fission fuel.[14] In addition, direct energy conversion, has been developed (at LLNL in the 1980s) as a method to maintain a voltage using the products of a fusion reaction. This has demonstrated an energy capture efficiency of 48 percent.[15]

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=104&t=3

How much electricity does a nuclear power plant generate?
As of November 1, 2014, there were 100 operating nuclear reactors at 62 nuclear power plants in the United States. The Fort Calhoun plant in Nebraska has one reactor with the smallest generating capacity1 of 502 megawatts (MW).

As of 23 April 2014, the IAEA report there are 435 Fission nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries

http://i.imgur.com/pJfUa0O.jpg

So a small fission nuclear plant would output 500 - 1000 mw while also needing and producing many toxins and radiation , fear of meltdown, nuclear waste, refined uranium, (could be used to make a bomb) while a fusion reactor might only produce 500 mw, all those dangers are gone. See the advantages yet?

Quote (kalelvszod @ Sep 7 2015 07:52pm)

its definitely got its advantages however realistically the cost and like i said land requirements are huge. im sure once this is perfected probably 50 years down the road it will be amazing but atm 500mw is nothing to jump up and down about. not gonna solve the worlds problems they will be like this for rest of our life time if not worse. would take 100+ of these to be up and running in next 5 years to make a difference imo

Quote (card_sultan @ Sep 7 2015 09:11pm)

There's a saying that says we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and although this isnt going to solve the world's problems this decade, depends on how far you think we need to find solutions for. If this could replace every single nuclear and coal plant in 100 years with this as well as more Solar/Wind/Wave energy sources dependance, it would be pretty awesome and until there is a more viable option, this one seems pretty good so far. Did you watch that Video in post 8?

Quote (kalelvszod @ Sep 7 2015 08:28pm)

no i didnt watch. in the time it takes for this a more renewable abundant power source could be stumbled upon aswell. i also wonder if the human race will make it another 100 years

Quote (card_sultan @ Sep 7 2015 10:15pm)

Not sure what can be more abundant than hydrogen, as to whether the earth can make it another 100 years - who knows what tomorrow will bring, but it certainly won't hurt developing solutions and being ready for the future.

Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 8 2015 10:26am)

Id be more comfortable if they eventually move these types of experiments to space stations or colonies on mars. Human's have too shitty of a track record with anything nuclear for me to be comfortable with creating a new "controllable" sun on earth. The last thing we need is more uninhabitable space from nuclear botches.

Quote (card_sultan @ Sep 7 2015 06:12pm)

Depends what you think of as a long time - The Iter plant could be producing in 12 years and I think there's another project called NIN or something, there also like 30 of these reactors in universities so they know how to work them. I think the main issue at the present is sustaining plasma for 1000 continuous secs and also who knows what else might be invented in that time.

I doubt the USA is going to think about replacing Nuclear plants for at least 30 years, but there is just more reasons to really question building new plants and denying this technology is anywhere near viable.