what ever happened to fusion?

[pinkpops]

[Deja Q]

1. Last I heard, and this is old, it's not cost-effective.

Things may have changed, but I wouldn't know. :(

[krispos42]

2. The power source of the future....

Been that for about half a century now.

It would help if the Repubs hadn't cut federal funding for fusion research back in 1995.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. fusion = perpetual motion = alchemy = bigfoot = astrology

Except bigfoot might be real.

[pinkpops]

5. except as noted below perhaps

[Javaman]

11. I was hoping for the perpetual bigfoot, but alas, it seems not to be. nt

[eppur_se_muova]

4. It's still happening in the Sun, and a Brazillion other stars.

But here on Earth? See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/27/213841/746

[Javaman]

12. Wasn't that a hollywood event...Night of a Brazillian stars? nt

[acmavm]

6. Costs more than the less stable method of fission. So therefore...

it all boils down to money. Profits that is. The big P.

[NNadir]

7. It doesn't work.

[Odin2005]

8. Theres too much pessimism in this thread

:(

[pinkpops]

9. I think you're right

[phantom power]

13. The MSM only reports the bad news on climate change!

It demoralizes the citizens.

[GliderGuider]

14. They got into the habit when reporting on Iraq

If only the damned media would report all our successes, we wouldn't be losing the Global War On Nature.

[Odin2005]

15. Huh? I was compalining about the "we'll never have fusion" attitude.

They were saying we would never make it to the moon back in the 50s and that there would never be heavier-then-air flight in the 1890s.

[phantom power]

16. My position on fusion is similar to my position on solar.

We should by all means continue developing it as a technology. However, it will not be deployable in time to be relevant to our pressing problems with climate change and/or Peak-fossil, because those problems are already upon us. Anything that we can't start deploying right now won't be in time to mitigate what's coming.

[freethought]

10. Trust me, it is being worked on!

But the hurdles are great. Any advances in fusion have come in the form of small "baby" steps. Sorry, to say there haven't been any "eureka" type discoveries or huge leaps forward.
There is fusion research going on at Sandia National Labs but it is sort of ad-hoc. I had the privilege of meeting someone who worked there. According to what they told me they never get money budgeted directly for fusion research rather they can use what is left over from other project work.
There is also another facility in California doing research on a parallel path.

Then there is the ITER Project (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor-Link - http://www.iter.org/ )
This is a multinational cooperative project to develop a working fusion reactor or tomakak, as it is sometimes referred. They will be breaking ground on a new test/research facility in France. I do know the U.S. has some involvement but I don't know how great that involvement is. As I understand it the lions share of the funding is from the EU and Japan. God forbid the Bush government should do anything cooperatively.

ITER is a long term deal expected to last a few decades. It is a huge challenge but one they seem to think is achievable.

[AlecBGreen]

17. IIRC

scientists have created fusion reactions here on earth but they were short-lived and used more energy than they created.

-Alec

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. There are a few 'long-shot' projects done by proper scientists

Perhaps one might produce something; but you couldn't include them in any energy plan over any tiemscale, however large:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/science/ci_5649969