/sci/ - Science & Math

Your prof is wrong if he said "a couple years".

But start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Ya, we're nowhere near implementing fusion.
Thorium fission however...

>where we can get more energy than we put in

Not quite. I see the intended meaning, but someone is the victim of poor choice or interpretation of words.

How far off are we really? A few decades? A century? How profound are the implications of such technology?

>>4513383
The common joke goes something like "It's been 20 years away for 50 years now". We're making progress, but projections have been too optimistic.

>>4513383
>How far off are we really? A few decades? A century?
That's hard to answer because there are mitigating circumstances that could accelerae the development or hinder it. But right now, we will not have a fusion reactor before the oil runs out and after that we'd be SO hosed.
>How profound are the implications of such technology?
What happened to the earth when we figured out how to burn carbon? The energy capacity of fusion would be staggering, but we not only can't do it, we don't need it yet.
Fission would be fine, if we stopped dicking around with oil and preventing Thorium from being used. The LFTR is really the way to go for what we need.

>>4513407

>500MW from half a gram of hydrogen: The hunt for fusion power heats up

>>4513413
So, post-scarcity society?

When does oil run out?

Let me guess, your prof is in the faculty of arts.

Efficient cold "fusion" has been done since 1989, but not enough research has been done to make it reliable. Hot fusion could be come practical eventually.

>>4513439
>So, post-scarcity society?
Ya pretty much. It'd be like "so what should we clean up this month?"
>When does oil run out?
Hubbert peak plot suggests we're just past the peak and that collapse would take place around 2040.

>>4513465
No, 'cold' fusion has never been demonstrated despite numerous claims to have cracked it. All were fraudulent.

>>4513465
>cold fusion
>not a scam