wrote in :

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:

Add ten years for the environmental impact report and another
ten for the lawsuits by the wack jobs claiming it will destroy
the planet.

So, are you saying the issue is one of bureaucracy, rather than
technological?

No.

As is usual for any discussion on matters of energy, the discussion
tends to focus on one issue and ignores the big picture.

And the "Big Picture" is... what, that is missing in my question to
your statement?

An understanding that just because I mentioned bureaucratic issues, it
does not mean those are the only issues, nor am I implying those are
the only issues, nor am I implying they are the most important issues.

They are simply one of many issues.

You want a list of issues?

Here's a quick one probably missing numerous items:

Can sustained man made fusion even be done?

Once fired up, would the plant have a continuous duty cycle or would
it need to be shut down now and then to maintain/refuel something?

If so, how often would that be?

What would the required capital cost to build a commercial plant be?

What would the life cycle cost of the plant be and the amortized cost
of the electricity generated?

How long can a plant be expected to last?

What are the safety issues? If something goes wrong will the fire just
go out or will there need to be safeguards to keep the plant from
vaporizing?

What, if any, waste products will be produced?

Will massive amounts of waste heat be generated requiring large
amounts of water to deal with the heat?

Would the waste heat have an impact on the local environment?

What is the required land area for a plant including any required
safety zones?

Will NIMBY's and Luddites block contruction of such a plant at every
turn?



Those aren't issues, those are questions that you have which you can
easily find answers to.



Bertie