Actually, the total stored energy of large reactors like JET (or the proposed ITER) is quite large. Extremely large currents (~10 MegaAmps) flow through these devices. Uncontrolled shutdowns ('disruptions') are the rule rather than the exception in fusion relevant tokamak plasmas. Some of these have been violent enough to lift the entire device (many tons) ten centimetres into the air.
Needless to say, this is a bit impractical for a power plant.
One of the academics here used to like to compare the stored energy of a (power plant scale) Tokamak to the kinetic energy of a fully laden 747.
I haven't heard him use that analogy recently.
There are significant issues associated with large scale instabilities which still need to be addressed, It is important that people realise that, as with any technology, there is an inherent level of risk.
Some people push fusion as the silver bullet to all our problems, but realism is important.
Firstly, I have to say that this is one of my all-time favourite movies.
Secondly, I had a long discussion with a friend of mine who couldn't stand 2001, and in the end she admitted that it was just too slow - she couldn't tolerate waiting 20 seconds between cuts.
The most recent (sort of mainstream) movie I've seen do this is "Eyes wide shut" (obvious link to 2001), but then people seem to cope better with the long shots when there's a possibility of naked flesh around the corner.
Basically, I just don't get the a feeling of atmosphere from the 1/4 second cuts most recent films favour. I guess that I also lose immersion when a movie explains the bleeding obvious several times.
I guess that people still read books that are thousands of years old, but it always seems a problem when the method of presentation (ie long shots) are unfamiliar or difficult. Are people going to like this film in 2061 ?
In another comment, it was pointed out how pointless it is to use solar panels to produce fuel. There are much more (cost) effective ways to create fuel from the sun (Think plants).
However, using hybrid (or straight electric) car technology allows much more efficient use of the electricity generated from solar panels. The main problem then becomes the purchase cost of the panels.
Assume your house roof is covered with solar panels (50m^2/50yard^2). At 1kW/m^2 insolation 20% of the time, with 10% efficiency, electric power output is 1kW (24kW hours per day).
This is more than enough for most commutes, given a reasonably efficient electric car (60% charging, motor efficiency, low air/rolling resistance).
It was also suggested that you needed to produce about 100kW to pull away from the lights - in a light (1 tonne) electric vehicle this would give 0-60mph in less than 4 seconds.
On long trips chemical fuel would obviously be necessary.
So this kind of solution is not totally impossible.
My physics department (Melbourne University) is running a collaboration which might see a quantum
computer on silicon in the next year or so.
I believe that the only real difficulty in getting this kind of thing into the innards of a normal computer is the liquid helium cooling system..
Of course, some wouldn't mind having this anyway!
The usefulness of a quantum computer is dependant on the number of quantum bits (qubits), and this would probably be a one-qubit proof of principle device at first. Timescale for multiple qubit devices is a few years.
(quick quiz: What is the law which gives the doubling time for the number of qubits on a single device?)
However, this may not work out, so as usual, grains of salt are required.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the total stored energy of large reactors like JET (or the proposed ITER) is quite large. Extremely large currents (~10 MegaAmps) flow through these devices. Uncontrolled shutdowns ('disruptions') are the rule rather than the exception in fusion relevant tokamak plasmas. Some of these have been violent enough to lift the entire device (many tons) ten centimetres into the air.
Needless to say, this is a bit impractical for a power plant.
One of the academics here used to like to compare the stored energy of a (power plant scale) Tokamak to the kinetic energy of a fully laden 747.
I haven't heard him use that analogy recently.
There are significant issues associated with large scale instabilities which still need to be addressed, It is important that people realise that, as with any technology, there is an inherent level of risk.
Some people push fusion as the silver bullet to all our problems, but realism is important.
Secondly, I had a long discussion with a friend of mine who couldn't stand 2001, and in the end she admitted that it was just too slow - she couldn't tolerate waiting 20 seconds between cuts.
The most recent (sort of mainstream) movie I've seen do this is "Eyes wide shut" (obvious link to 2001), but then people seem to cope better with the long shots when there's a possibility of naked flesh around the corner.
Basically, I just don't get the a feeling of atmosphere from the 1/4 second cuts most recent films favour. I guess that I also lose immersion when a movie explains the bleeding obvious several times.
I guess that people still read books that are thousands of years old, but it always seems a problem when the method of presentation (ie long shots) are unfamiliar or difficult. Are people going to like this film in 2061 ?
However, using hybrid (or straight electric) car technology allows much more efficient use of the electricity generated from solar panels. The main problem then becomes the purchase cost of the panels.
Assume your house roof is covered with solar panels (50m^2/50yard^2). At 1kW/m^2 insolation 20% of the time, with 10% efficiency, electric power output is 1kW (24kW hours per day).
This is more than enough for most commutes, given a reasonably efficient electric car (60% charging, motor efficiency, low air/rolling resistance).
It was also suggested that you needed to produce about 100kW to pull away from the lights - in a light (1 tonne) electric vehicle this would give 0-60mph in less than 4 seconds.
On long trips chemical fuel would obviously be necessary.
So this kind of solution is not totally impossible.
My physics department (Melbourne University) is running a collaboration which might see a quantum computer on silicon in the next year or so. I believe that the only real difficulty in getting this kind of thing into the innards of a normal computer is the liquid helium cooling system.. Of course, some wouldn't mind having this anyway! The usefulness of a quantum computer is dependant on the number of quantum bits (qubits), and this would probably be a one-qubit proof of principle device at first. Timescale for multiple qubit devices is a few years. (quick quiz: What is the law which gives the doubling time for the number of qubits on a single device?) However, this may not work out, so as usual, grains of salt are required.