Im certainly with you @zones. Although experts are currently suggesting viable power around 2050
The science is looking really promising for fusion reactors. The theorgy and small scale experiements have proven successful, howerver, it seems finding a durable and reliable system that can produce more energy that it requires (a failing with earlier experiments) is the drawback. ITER look like they’re closest. Check out the machine if you haven’t already. http://www.iter.org/mach
For such revolutionary technologies, as this would no doubt be, we may just be waiting for a jump in our theoretical knowledge of fusion containment. It could also be something as simple as an advance in materials science.
So taking your assumption as correct, public acceptance of fusion will completely depend on marketing. We’re already seen how trying to sell things like nuclear power has gone in Australia. One single mention of the word thermonuclear could be enough to undo all the promise. If we’re not careful everyone will be be buying ‘black hole survival’ kits. That why we need to train more people in the understanding of science, or the ability to teach science to the masses.
@zones: I think for people to accept fusion reactors, they need to believe they will be safe.
I agree with Mick’s answer – we’re going to need some excellent scientists and science communicators to help make this a reality the general community would buy into.
Education, safety and good science will be paramount. People with various agendas can use very fever was to sway the opinion of people, so hopefully we are more educated in the future to each have informed opinions. That way, if something looks like a good idea and isn’t going to harm us then it will probably be accepted.on the other hand there may be no choice if we are to have an energy source after we’ve ripped everything imaginable out of the ground to use as fuel.
Im certainly with you @zones. Although experts are currently suggesting viable power around 2050
The science is looking really promising for fusion reactors. The theorgy and small scale experiements have proven successful, howerver, it seems finding a durable and reliable system that can produce more energy that it requires (a failing with earlier experiments) is the drawback. ITER look like they’re closest. Check out the machine if you haven’t already. http://www.iter.org/mach
For such revolutionary technologies, as this would no doubt be, we may just be waiting for a jump in our theoretical knowledge of fusion containment. It could also be something as simple as an advance in materials science.
So taking your assumption as correct, public acceptance of fusion will completely depend on marketing. We’re already seen how trying to sell things like nuclear power has gone in Australia. One single mention of the word thermonuclear could be enough to undo all the promise. If we’re not careful everyone will be be buying ‘black hole survival’ kits. That why we need to train more people in the understanding of science, or the ability to teach science to the masses.
Got your hand up? 😉
0
@zones: I think for people to accept fusion reactors, they need to believe they will be safe.
I agree with Mick’s answer – we’re going to need some excellent scientists and science communicators to help make this a reality the general community would buy into.
0
Education, safety and good science will be paramount. People with various agendas can use very fever was to sway the opinion of people, so hopefully we are more educated in the future to each have informed opinions. That way, if something looks like a good idea and isn’t going to harm us then it will probably be accepted.on the other hand there may be no choice if we are to have an energy source after we’ve ripped everything imaginable out of the ground to use as fuel.
0