AliM
Well-Known Member
Neil,
I think you mean fusion - that is like a hydrogen bomb, but in control, rather than fission, which is like a uranium bomb. The advantages of fusion are that it uses hydrogen isotopes (available from water and from lithium, I think) so there's lots of them, and if things go wrong it just stops happening, rather than blowing up, and the waste is relatively benign. The disadvantage is it's incredibly difficult. Your programme said it will be possible in 20 years time - so did a lecture I heard in 1972! - so I suspect that's optimistic, but it will come in our kids' lifetimes.
I agree, it's the way we have to go, and the governments should be pumping indecent amounts into research, but they aren't because it will only reap rewards in teh next government but three!
Ali
I think you mean fusion - that is like a hydrogen bomb, but in control, rather than fission, which is like a uranium bomb. The advantages of fusion are that it uses hydrogen isotopes (available from water and from lithium, I think) so there's lots of them, and if things go wrong it just stops happening, rather than blowing up, and the waste is relatively benign. The disadvantage is it's incredibly difficult. Your programme said it will be possible in 20 years time - so did a lecture I heard in 1972! - so I suspect that's optimistic, but it will come in our kids' lifetimes.
I agree, it's the way we have to go, and the governments should be pumping indecent amounts into research, but they aren't because it will only reap rewards in teh next government but three!
Ali