Fusion

In the news today, the magnificent Iter nuclear fusion project... and what was the angle they took covering this on the TV? Friends of the Earth outside with their beards, banners & bullshit. The basis of their protest? In the words of their policy coordinator, Roger Higman:

"We face a very real energy crisis over the next 50 years which is to do with climate change; that we have to stop using coal, oil and gas."

I mostly agree, for a change, although your timescale is a wee bit out. But do carry on...

"The question we would ask is: isn't the money that's being spent on fusion better spent on proven technologies rather than chasing a dream that even its proponents say will take a hundred years before it's going to providing any of our energy answers?"

NO NO NO NO NO! Such unmitigated qualitative crap is guaranteed to rupture my spleen. Not a proven technology? What's that big bright thing in the sky then?? Fusion is the only, I repeat, only technology that's even on the horizon with the possibility of competing with oil & gas as a large scale, viable energy source. Renewables are important & have their place, but they are not capable of making a significant dent in the world's growing gluttony for energy. Renewables plus the dark ages, perhaps, but that kind of stance isn't going to win any elections.

I've even been to forums where such eco-nuts have moaned about wind farms because they don't look very nice in the countryside. Firstly, I disagree - I find them rather elegant - but I don't want to get into an argument about aesthetics. They should be viewed as a strictly temporary measure, there for maybe 30 years to fill a gap in energy supply, then decommissioned when the fusion reactors come online. In the mean time, it will mean that they can actually afford the fuel for the Rainbow Warrior (it didn't run on buttercups & used camomile tealeaves last time I checked).

If only we could harness the all the hot air emanating from the eco-nuts. Then we would truly have a formidable energy source.