Reply to comment
So where has fusion gone?
October 11, 2007 by Robert A Cook PE, 2 years 6 weeks ago
Comment id: 25420
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
It is striking that the ultimate (potentially) energy answer has been not only ignored, but not even brought up as an option in the oil-coal-nuclear fission-nuclear breeder-wind/solar/tidal mix: Fusion is simply not discussed any more.
True, it is not producing energy yet, but equally, it remains possible. No theorectical or fuel-source problems remain - only the "simple" engineering problems of getting it to work.
I'd much rather retain oil, coal, and natural gas for their real value (plastics, drugs and paints and clothing and dyes and medicines and lubricates and the milllions of other products) that we have absolutely NO other chemical source can be substituted.
To burn our future's resources for "the carbon value" is indeed, being fuelish.