Every year, one typical coal-fired power station devours several million tonnes of fuel and produces even more carbon dioxide. Burning stuff has the virtue that it is simple but it is very brutal. That volume of carbon dioxide is damaging the atmosphere and, in the longer term, the fuel will run out. It is clear that the world needs an alternative to generating energy by setting fire to things.
For a good few years now, nuclear fusion has looked like offering a solution to the problem. For every 100 tonnes of coal we burn, fusion has the potential to deliver the same amount of energy, without any carbon dioxide emission, using a small bath of water and the lithium contained in a single laptop battery. Moreover, it would be inherently very safe and would not produce any significant radioactive waste. Lest there be any confusion, the science behind this way of harnessing the energy locked away inside the atomic nucleus is entirely different from that used in current nuclear fission reactors. It almost seems too good to be true … but it isn’t.
This is where we need to be putting our future energy dollars, not more goddamn drilling in the Gulf.
Read the full article at guardian.co.uk.