1. 🤣Don’t hold your breath. Fusion has been 10 years from reality since I took my Nuclear Engineering courses back in the 1970’s.

    1. I think you should probably brush up on your nuclear engineering if you think this isn’t a massive accomplishment lol

    1. @Robert Turner _Nuclear has radioactive waste that is harmful to life and lasts thousands of years._

      The danger posed by fission radioactive waste is exaggerated and misunderstood. Also, fusion too does produce waste, but of a different kind to fission.

    2. @Primmakin Sofis Tell that to the folks close to 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukashima. Or look at how Nevada felt about Yucca Mountain. They did not want the waste. I believe these communities are all acting rationally to have concerns.

    3. @Shaolin Rasta geothermal isn’t even close to as energy dense as nuclear. Nothing can match nuclear power output

  2. There is even a documentary on it but because cold fusion was the big thing back then the 2 scientists that had done this had there careers literally destroyed and there names slandered

    1. @Keatrith Amakiir yes but back in the day there was so much money pumped into and that’s why pretty much the while science community went against these other 2 scientists discovery.

    2. @rapier1954 Farrell not talking about cold fusion the 2 scientists made a reaction with hot fusion it was a big thing about them publishing there findings before they had it peer reviewed

    3. @Sean Baran Please put up the reference to actual scientific official sources for what you are claiming.

    4. @rapier1954 Farrell il b more then happy too when I’m done work and I find it. Documentary came out years ago.

    1. There’s a big fusion project in Europe called “Iter”. They are a coupe of years from when they expect to produce net positive energy. After that they have 20 years of research planned. So, decades still.

    2. This is the equivalent of humans figure out how to get gasoline out of crude oil. No combustion engine, rubber tires or cars for that matter when it was figured out but where we went from then to now. Think of were we can take this in the 100+ years.

    1. Yes it has no carbon footprint .it will be years from now and need a gigantic initial investment.the environment will be the real winner

    1. We’ve had those for 70 years. They are called thermo nuclear weapons. Smashing atoms together is the easy part, getting them to sustain a reaction indefinitely is the (so far) impossible part

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.