Remember back in the '50s, when official-sounding newsreels promised that we'd have new-kew-lur-powered cars by the '70s and no one would ever be unhappy? Probably not, since we've gotten a skewed sense of history from watching too many episodes of Futurama. Still, several decades behind schedule, the promise of clean and unlimited energy might finally be looming upon the horizon, thanks to Lockheed Martin. The defense behemoth believes that it might have a working prototype of its Compact Fusion Reactor in a decade, which might just save the world as we know it.

For those not in the know, nuclear power is great, but there are many reasons why we've never ditched coal and gas in favor of fission. For starters, there's risk of a meltdown, the process produces hard-to-dispose-of nuclear waste and throws out highly lethal radiation at all times. Fusion, by comparison, is a lot less dangerous, and could theoretically be shrunk down to the point where it could power an airplane that never needs to land in order to refuel.

A team at the company's Skunk Works, lead by Dr. Thomas McGuire, has cherry-picked elements from previous fusion experiments to build a magnetic containment chamber that's 90 percent smaller than previous devices. The reactor's small size means that it's possible to turn prototypes around in under a year, and McGuire believes that Lockheed Martin will be able to demonstrate true fusion energy by 2020. The system also promises to be able to plug into the existing gas turbine power infrastructure, which would instantly eliminate carbon emissions in the sector, and, even better, enhance "energy security," which is a euphemism for not buying coal and gas from your political enemies.

I don't doubt their ability to make it possible. I just doubt the ability of the public and companies to accept it [or even allow it]

Quote

For starters, there's risk of a meltdown, the process produces hard-to-dispose-of nuclear waste and throws out highly lethal radiation at all times. Fusion, by comparison, is a lot less dangerous

dat blatant misinformation propagated by the media tho

Quote from: E̲n̲g̲a̲g̲e̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y̲ on October 17, 2014, 10:55:13 PM

Quote

For starters, there's risk of a meltdown, the process produces hard-to-dispose-of nuclear waste and throws out highly lethal radiation at all times. Fusion, by comparison, is a lot less dangerous

dat blatant misinformation propagated by the media tho

true dat modern nuclear plants are far safer than they used to be.

Quote from: Dustin xBasedGod on October 17, 2014, 11:03:33 PM

Quote from: E̲n̲g̲a̲g̲e̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y̲ on October 17, 2014, 10:55:13 PM

Quote

For starters, there's risk of a meltdown, the process produces hard-to-dispose-of nuclear waste and throws out highly lethal radiation at all times. Fusion, by comparison, is a lot less dangerous

dat blatant misinformation propagated by the media tho

That's literally how fission works though. It's not this magical energy source with no drawbacks.

The drawbacks are minimal. Current reactors are very safe and reliable. Risk of a meltdown is basically zero (for perspective, the reactors in Fukushima were shitty and poorly regulated and it took a massive tsunami and earthquake to cause a meltdown). Nuclear waste isn't difficult to dispose of, and while the reactors do emit radiation, shielding is very easy (water alone blocks almost all of it) and there are zero cases of dangerous dosage of radiation in modern power plants.

You're right, nuclear power isn't magical. It's also not scary. You take a really heavy metal, you shoot a neutron at it so that it releases some of the metal's binding energy, you allow that energy to heat up some water, use that water to boil some other water, and then you let the steam drive a generator shaft. It's self-sustaining, has an abundant fuel source, and doesn't involve blowing up million-year-old algea.

2. What you said was just inherently wrong. There's countless nuclear waste spills across the country. Read up.

3. I'm not an expert on nuclear physics, meaning there comes a point where I have to choose which source I'm going to listen to. In the sense that garbage incineration isn't actually an environmentally safe procedure as it's often claimed to be, the same generally goes for nuclear power. And seeing as all you've done is ramble about how safe it is without providing any sources to your information, and seeing part of your knowledge on nuclear power and nuclear waste is wrong, I can't simply take your word without knowing which organizations you get your information from.

Is Dustbin really trying to argue with Turkey on this subject? Lol