Fusion Power - The Physics Holy Grail?

OK, so I've been looking up theories and options for new power sources with the global oil crisis and such. One which has really struck me is Fusion Power. Given that my country (UK) is now building a shit-ton more of the more dangerous Nuclear Fission power stations I'm wondering why people haven't invested more in this Fusion idea sooner.

So hit me with it, pros and cons, and whether you think it's attainable by the end of this century.

By end of century, almost certainly attainable; end of 2008? no way.

Pros:
a) primary exhaust is helium, which is safe and in low supply
b) lots of hydrogen available (oceans)
c) high usable energy/kg of H

Cons:
a) supply is limited (might be good idea to save some for when the sun goes out)
b) most hydrogen does not have a neutron, and cannot fuse; refining natural hydrogen is bound to get more difficult as deuterium/tritium is depleted
c) if hydrogen is mined from oceans, then water levels will decline (less temperature stability, since water has uber heat capacity), and oxygen levels will rise (probably not enough to be toxic, but might do something to the ecosystem eventually)
d) zomg nuclear proliferation - maybe...
e) high reactor temperatures + gas leak = detonation of lots of H = nuclear explosion... of the type that makes Hiroshima seem tame
f) if exhaust He is allowed to be wasted, it will leave the atmosphere permanently

Actually there is not are no energy problems. The problems lies within the humanity (or the ones who have the power...)

In the end we have to use solar-energy.

Or we are using the moon as powerstation.....

All these are not cost-efficient first, but people that only think for the next 10 years sould die.......

>>2
e) sounds good, very good.

>>2
Supply is not nearly limited as you think it is. Deuterium may be a relatively rare isotope of hydrogen, but hydrogen is still the most common element in the universe. There's a fuck of a lot more deuterium in any given ocean than there is uranium in the whole planet.
It should be noted, though, that while deuterium is a lot more reactive than protium (that is, hydrogen without neutrons), protium will fuse as well, though it takes more energy to get the reaction going.

As for your point c, I don't think you understand how little hydrogen would be needed to power the entire world indefinitely. There's a lot more water than there is oil, and the water would produce a lot more energy per gallon. If you're bored, do the math.
Even with exponential growth of energy consumption (which there wouldn't be for long), it'd take millions of years before the oceans would be affected in any real way.

Point d and e: we already have hydrogen bombs, and hot fusion is essentially a solved problem. The issue at hand is cold fusion, which would be more than safe enough to use in power generation, and which doesn't lend itself to manufacturing nuclear weapons.
Even if it was that dangerous, though, it's trivial to just build the plant in a desert or Antarctica or anywhere else where there's little life to destroy. There wouldn't be any radioactive fallout either way, and that's the biggest killer when it comes to nuclear fission.

And f, the Earth still has a gravitational field. Some of it might escape, but most of it will just float around in the upper atmosphere for ages.
That is, if it ended up in the atmosphere in the first place, and had a chance to rise all the way up. There's a reason helium can still be found on Earth even though we don't have a way of manufacturing it now, you know.

In conclusion: stop posting.

>>4
There is indeed plenty of supply.  I was assuming that humans are interested in maintaining their existence ad infinitum.  In such a case, the finite supply would be crippling eventually.  If we're just interested in the short term, of say 1 million yrs, then I don't think supply is an issue.

Deuterium isn't that rare, but tritium is.  There isn't enough lithium around (I think?) to get all our tritium that way.  Once we figure out how to accomplish fusion without tritium, then that becomes a non issue.

I suppose we could send harvesting missions to Jupiter after we run out of hydrogen here, but getting hydrogen from outside of earth is hardly a trivial task.

I'm pretty sure cold fusion's already disproven.  Right now, they're trying to maintain the plasma cloud for as long as possible.  The fact that it's OVER 9000K doesn't help.  I'm not too concerned about nuclear proliferation, but the hippiefags will, and listening to them will be painful.  Not having radioactive fallout is great, as is building reactors in deserts [middle east! lol].  Building in antarctica is a bad idea... reactor detonation = +3m to ocean levels.

Most of the helium found on earth are underground.  As for floating in the upper atmosphere... the problem I saw in my thermo book suggested that at equilibrium, a gas in a gravitational field will, on average, be infinitely far away... which makes it surprising there's an atmosphere on earth at all.  There's probably something else the question assumed/ignored.

MOON, do you know that thing?

But NASA fails bigtime nowadays.

Just install some freaking huge efficient panels on the moon and get those rawmaterials to the earth.

JUST FUCKING DO IT.

THINK LONGTERM.

>>5
You know what would be more crippling, ``ad infinitum''? The heat death of the universe.
And considering that the sun will have turned into a red giant and consumed the Earth before the oceans would run out of hydrogen, getting to Jupiter would hardly be an issue.

There are plenty of fusion reactions that don't involve tritium, and even if there weren't and the only way we could get more was through neutron activation of lithium (which isn't the case), there's no shortage of lithium either.

Cold fusion hasn't been ``disproven'' (whatever that even fucking means in this context), we just haven't found a way to do it at this point.

And you're an idiot if you think a nuclear explosion would melt the whole of Antarctica. It'd create a puddle on top of an ice shelf, which would then freeze again.

If you're going to post, at least think before you do.

>>6
Do you have even the slightest clue how much energy it takes to get from the Earth to the moon and back, especially carrying heavy loads?
Shut the fuck up.

>>7
Are we even sure how big the sun will be when it turns into a red giant?  Half the sources say that the earth will be consumed, and the other half say only venus will be consumed.  Either way the earth will be pwnd pretty hard, though in the latter case, human technology may be sufficient for them to luck out.

Indeed, there are more than one available fusion reaction, but getting them to occur is the hard part.  Last I recall, fusing heavier particles requires higher temperatures/pressures.  Seems like I underestimated the abundance of lithium.

Perhaps "disproven" was a bit strong, but an earlier claim to cold fusion has definitely been disproven.  Research will continue to advance, but I doubt cold will ever go below 1000K.

If the whole of antarctica melted, that'd be ~100m increase in water levels.  I stated ~3m, which was still probably an exaggeration, but certainly does not imply the whole of antarctica melting.

I thought, just not enough.  Since you seem to know more about this subject, perhaps you'd care to post more?

hi namefag

>more dangerous Nuclear Fission power stations

lol wut

>>7 You stupid fag!

LONGTERM SOLUTION!

I am sure the energy balance will be positive!

OH WAIT YOU ARE TO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND IT.

>>11
Enjoy being completely disconnected from reality. Wishful thinking creates more problems than it solves.

>>12
Wishful thinking?

More like longterm thinking.

Disconnected from reality? Perhaps for small-minded people like you.

>>13
I am sure the energy balance will be positive!
This line is bullshit, and wishing it weren't doesn't make it so.

>>14

I am sure , that the energy balance is positive.
Nothing more to add.

I'm actually a biologist by training but I started getting into sonoluminescence through pistol shrimp, and from there I learned more about bubble fusion.

What do you think about bubble fusion as a feasible way to create internal confinement fusion? Do you think people would be willing to invest research in it even after Taleyarkhan fucked everything up? I would really like to see more research into it...to the point where I may actually decide to change fields...but I doubt there's much funding for it.

>>16
You should stay in your current field. The shrimp need you.