Comments DisabledThe author has disabled comments for this blog.
About this Blog
created Mar 24
169 Views
Last Viewed: 17 hrs ago
Last Commented: Mar 25
Last Edited: Mar 26
Comments Disabled by Author
Licensedtothrill has 35 other Blogs
Licensedtothrill Blogs (35)
Feeling Creative?
Report Blogs that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the Blog Abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to Report Blog Abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Comments (4)
A question of what does the transport cost vs effect, i guess.
How many kilos they need per mwh?
Are you sure fission is not still better?
I'm a big fan of new modern nuclear power.
Maybe in this smaller portable types, the ones that can be cooled without water.
The difference between fusion and fission is that the former produces much more energy, whereas the latter produces more radioactivity which needs to be contained. But yes in the meantime I would agree that smaller nuclear power stations would be better.
Fusion been more than just a jazz-rock phenomen for quite some time now.
But is it really closer to production - did the article say how cost effectve mining
and transport of this perticular mineral would be (is my question).
I bet Elon Musk could be wild enough to look into this:)
Thanks for the blog, interesting.
Commercial production of electricity using nuclear fusion is expected to be around 2030. Experiments are taking place around the world, and in the UK, scientists at JET, Joint European Torus laboratory have achieved production of a small amount of energy through fusion. The challenge is constant production of extreme heat. 59 megajoules was achieved.