FISSION
I'm sorry to seem upset, but I am sick and tired of proponents of Fusion always compare it's POTENTIAL (I say potential because it has never been proven to produce anything) energy output to Fossil Fuels.
What I would like to know is how Fusion compares with something that actually works and has proven itself as an efficient, near-zero emission (certainly more so than Coal, Oil or Natural Gas), energy source, Nuclear Fission.
Proponents of Fusion are always quick to point out that it's fuel is Hydrogen and that Hydrogen can be collected from sea water, what they don't say is that this process requires more electricity than the resulting Fusion Reaction would ever produce. Not only would this make the entire process a complete energy sink, it would also drive the price of Fusion generated Electricity well above all existing sources (Coal, Petroleum, Natural Gas, Solar, Wind, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
FISSION I'm sorry to seem upset, but I am sick and tired of proponents of Fusion always compare it's POTENTIAL (I say potential because it has never been proven to produce anything) energy output to Fossil Fuels. What I would like to know is how Fusion compares with something that actually works and has proven itself as an efficient, near-zero emission (certainly more so than Coal, Oil or Natural Gas), energy source, Nuclear Fission. Proponents of Fusion are always quick to point out that it's fuel is Hydrogen and that Hydrogen can be collected from sea water, what they don't say is that this process requires more electricity than the resulting Fusion Reaction would ever produce. Not only would this make the entire process a complete energy sink, it would also drive the price of Fusion generated Electricity well above all existing sources (Coal, Petroleum, Natural Gas, Solar, Wind, etc.)