Fusion: The quest to recreate the Sun’s power on Earth

I hope they are successful, but I think the work Robert Bussard's work sounds more promising. The reason Fusion hasn't work to produce net energy is inherent to the tokamak design. You spend too much energy charging up the magnets to keep the plasma from colliding into the wall. Which is why more material is constantly added to the mix. Bussard currently holds the record for most fused particles/second (I think that's the metric) beating Farnsworth's record set in the 60s. Neither of them used Tokamaks to set their respective records.<p>He has made significantly more progress towards the goal of net energy production from Fusion over 40 years and billions spent on Tokamak research. I think his ideas have lots of promise, but oddly enough society hasn't trained people in this type of science in decades.<p>Problem is Bussard passed away not long ago so progress on Polywell is slow since there are very few people out there with the technical know how to pick up where he left off. But, still he has left quite a lot of documents and details about what he has done. I hope research continues.<p><a href="http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/03/07/bussards-emc2-fusion-contracts-extended/" rel="nofollow">http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/...</a>

"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."<p>What kind of logic is that?

Reminds me of a really old short story about a planet that built a black-hole drive. The story leads right up to the point where they hit the power button. And then it breaks to an "astronomical observer XY-1134" and his report on "yet another soloar system destroyed by attempts to travel faster then light".<p>I'm paraphrasing but does anyone wonder what happens if the fusion leaks out of the container and lights the planet on fire?<p>It makes me laugh that everyone is so focused on all sorts of dooms day scenarios and the reality is most likely someone will drop a vial of something horrible accidentally in a lab somewhere and half the human population of earth will be wiped out in 30 days.<p>Or most we'll just keep worrying about all this stuff and most of us will be dead, gone and dust before anything really interesting happens.

Counter-intuitive number: The net energy production in the sun's core is about the same as what a mammal produces per cubic meter. So we're already there, we just need more mammals. :-)<p>While fusion is indeed what powers the sun, we're trying to do something with fusion that's on a completely different scale.

Tokamaks have always seemed to me such a massive distraction in practical energy production, other than ancillary benefits due to the funding, upfront energies involved, and sheer scale.<p>Instead military complexes are quietly focussing on other nuclear research such as Polywell devices or forgoing the difficulties of fusion entirely and focussing on Generation IV fission reactor types such as Molten-Salt Reactors (MSR).<p>I'm willing to bet that the world's energy problems will be greatly ameliorated or even solved long before ITER ever produces more energy than it consumes. Even if it ever worked, the likelihood is that the extreme dependence on scale of any installation would make it impractical in a future we are heading to where everything is greatly distributed, including energy generation.

The Sun is not doughnut-shaped. The ITER fusion machine is conceptually flawed; the drawbacks are numerous: confinement time, plasma temperature, energy consumption, tritium breed, and there on. It is a lame that mainstream scientists think they are so smarter, but are unable to understand that electrostatic fusion machines are conceptually much better, much more energy-efficient and can be developed with much less money and in less time. <a href="http://youtu.be/ro5-QYqqxzM" rel="nofollow">http://youtu.be/ro5-QYqqxzM</a>

How about the part<p>&#62; Global energy demand is expected to double by 2050, while the share coming from fossil fuels – currently 85% – needs to drop dramatically if we are to reduce carbon emissions and limit global warming.<p>That is a highly controversial statement. But it is just dropped in there. Just dropped in.<p>Question: Where does that statement get its legs? That is, what forces, influences, or whatever are causing it to be just dropped in, just sprinkled on like salt on food?<p>To me dropping in that statement makes the BBC and the author look really silly; I can't believe that dropping in that statement helps their credibility or reputation. So, why are they just dropping in that statement?<p>Here's one reason: Just keep pushing that story. Everyday, every way, just push it. So, keep the story going. Get others in the media, e.g., the NYT, to do the same.<p>Then, for the payoff, about once a week, use some anecdotal data as an excuse to write a full story about 'global warming'. That story is really easy to write -- just pull up the framework story, fill in some blanks, and, presto, get a new story with new ad revenue. Maybe that's the answer.