This is what Perry, Trump and jem do not know anything about.... Fusion power would provide more energy for a given weight of fuel than any fuel-consuming energy source currently in use,[186] and the fuel itself (primarily deuterium) exists abundantly in the Earth's ocean: about 1 in 6500 hydrogen atoms in seawater is deuterium.[187] Although this may seem a low proportion (about 0.015%), because nuclear fusion reactions are so much more energetic than chemical combustion and seawater is easier to access and more plentiful than fossil fuels, fusion could potentially supply the world's energy needs for millions of years.[188][189] Despite being technically non-renewable, fusion power has many of the benefits of renewable energy sources (such as being a long-term energy supply and emitting no greenhouse gases) as well as some of the benefits of the resource-limited energy sources as hydrocarbons and nuclear fission (without reprocessing). Like these currently dominant energy sources, fusion could provide very high power-generation density and uninterrupted power delivery (because it is not dependent on the weather, unlike wind and solar power).[citation needed] Another aspect of fusion energy is that the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. The cost of water and wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy the production cost will not increase much even if large numbers of stations are built, because the raw resource (seawater) is abundant and widespread.[citation needed] Some problems that are expected to be an issue in this century, such as fresh water shortages, can alternatively be regarded as problems of energy supply. For example, in desalination stations, seawater can be purified through distillation or reverse osmosis. Nonetheless, these processes are energy intensive. Even if the first fusion stations are not competitive with alternative sources, fusion could still become competitive if large-scale desalination requires more power than the alternatives are able to provide.[citation needed] A scenario has been presented of the effect of the commercialization of fusion power on the future of human civilization.[190] ITER and later DEMO are envisioned to bring online the first commercial nuclear fusion energy reactor by 2050. Using this as the starting point and the history of the uptake of nuclear fission reactors as a guide, the scenario depicts a rapid take up of nuclear fusion energy starting after the middle of this century.[citation needed] *********************** Fusion energy may be used in the future to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and thereby control global warming and climate. But Trump and Perry know nothing about it. Like jem, they confuse it with fission power. Perry thinks fission is what he does down at the river while drinking beers and shooting coyotes and trying to remember the three branches of government.
I don't do videos. They are for juvenile illiterate righties. Very common for them. Because they don't read. Like Trump and Perry.
you are such a troll fraud currents. everyone knows the difference between splitting and fusing atoms. the funny thing is my father in law - who is staying with us right now - is an engineer who used to build nuclear plants for Shell. I think he may have even been a big pebble tech guy. If you got a question about fission plants and tech let me know. I can probably find out anything you want about fission plants and a bit about fusion.
The new wave with nuclear are smaller almost neighborhood reactors which eat their own waste. It's a hard sell.
That might actually be an appropriate comment if you were to apply the statement to the waters offshore near Fukushima rather than "down at the river"...well, sort of.
It requires more than basic science otherwise it would have been done a long time ago. Basic science requires a theory and predictions from the theory. If the predictions the theory make turn out to be wrong, you abandon the theory. Like for instance, if your theory predicted the arctic would be ice free by 2013, and it didnt happen, you would abandon that theory. Its called the scientific method. Many 'scientist' refuse to practice this method when it is detrimental to their funding, but that is a conservation for another.