Comments by "bighand69" (@bighands69) on "" video.

  1. It is all a fantasy.
    3
  2. Why would you be excited about something that will take 60 years to play out. There are things that are much closer to be excited about such as mini fission reactors, natural gas, clean coal, robotics, ai, nanotechnology, biotechnology and computer interfaces such as VR.
    3
  3. You forgot and left out the part that the DC transmission system requires superconducting bridges at the power generation side and power scaling side.
    2
  4. It is fantasy to think that this will play out in the short term. This is a research milestone nothing else. It is not the big breakthrough that will make it easier to produce.
    2
  5. He is being polite with the 70 year figure as the reality is that the reaction that was done as part of the experiment into fusion is not a viable energy generation system. He is pointing out the obvious to people that do not understand.
    2
  6. You are discussing a field that took 70 years to play out and then criticizing a guy for giving you a 70 year window for the next big era. Do you not see the irony in your statement?
    1
  7.  @williamhenry8914  The word net is debatable in this. They have a fusion reaction but how that would be considered net is a tough one.
    1
  8. That is pure fantasy at best.
    1
  9. I suspect before then we are going to see clean coal plants, gas plants, geothermal and a host of other solutions pop up.
    1
  10. OK then explain how they are going to build the fusion reactors at a powerplant level since you are calling the video nostradamus quality?
    1
  11.  @KitagumaIgen  If you cannot make predictions how can you call out somebody else?
    1
  12.  @brianjonker510  No. You just avoided by question. D oyou think they can easily build new power plants in existing infrastructure. Yes or no.
    1
  13. Your teacher has still not been proven wrong.
    1
  14. So you think there is going to be a grid of fusion power before 70 years time? Think about what you are rallying against in your statement.
    1
  15. But it will still take 70 years for it to play out.
    1
  16. You are just as bad with the thorium obsession.
    1
  17. Why?
    1
  18. Nope cannot.
    1
  19. Because of the distances involved, bridging generation to substations and the key is to have the most efficient system possible. If there is to be a small number of plants that would be the required approach if it is large number of plants expect it to take several more decades.
    1
  20. SO you think they are just going to easily build their new power plants on existing fission reactor infrastructure?
    1
  21. It is just fantasy.
    1
  22. Let us guess you the expert are going to guide us with your tone?
    1
  23. SO you think his 70 year figure is wrong then?
    1
  24.  @ianhollands1641  They were not workable scale reactors and were experimentation systems.
    1
  25.  @firstLast-sn3me  Those are all break through areas that I listed that are playing out right now. A science experiment on fusion that very few people understand is not something to get excited about. What you are seeing is nothing more than PR at play and media headlines designed to excite.
    1
  26. It is just science research nothing else. It is not an engineering system that can be applied.
    1
  27. Wait a minute you think they are going to be constructing fusion reactors for every building? That is pure science fiction at present.
    1
  28. Then you are asking for hundreds of stations to power the whole grid and guess what that will take 50 years to build out.
    1
  29. The public has no idea what any of this means. The media through a lot of headlines and editorial sections could convince the public to throw billions if not trillions into this area of research and it still would have no impact in the short or even medium term.
    1
  30. Nope not even connected.
    1
  31. That is just as bad in terms of belief systems. It is a theoretical conjecture that is always just around the corner as well.
    1
  32. Even if it was achieved in 2050 it would still take decades to then build out the system. And that would be a 70 year period. It is nothing like the Hoover Dam because that was built with existing engineering knowledge at the time. There is no engineering knowledge for Fusion just a vague science concept that we think we can engineer.
    1
  33. It is a drop in the ocean for the US.
    1
  34. Pure fantasy but that is the world we today live in where reality is ignored. This is fusion based research not fusion energy stations. I do not think people understand and hear the word fusion and assume it means an energy generation system.
    1
  35. The dollar is the only stable currency in the world.
    1