http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3997249.stm

But it will be ekstremely expencive and demands a fission reactor to start it up, and secure the the energy flow to make sure that the fusion is keep stable at all times.
Will probably cost as much as 5 new nuclear powerstations, and demands a certaint geological stability in its area since you cant turn it off and on again as you whish, so no geological misbehaving. + the fusion reactor will over time be seriously radioactive due to a constant bombartment of partickles and radiation, so you will have to foresee at what time you have to close it down and replace parts or close it down compleatly.

http://www.fusion.org.uk/focus/index.htm

http://www.fusion.org.uk/culham/annrep0304/index.html

100 million degrees centigrade can be achived by coliding lasers, particle streams, and colapsing a magnetic field on an energy source. Soon enough... The US backed out of the deal???? I guess we have trouble getting along with other people... or we can't afford our share??? 6 billion for an unlimited power source, yet we'll probably spend that much on the oil wars??? It's not radioactive, only produces short lived alpha particles.

And with some advancements in supermagnets (a perfect magnet is a structure, not an alloy.... charged{holmium-ion} bieng the outlet in the north/ Neodium compound being the inlet to the south. See [E-bomb] .....continious external combustion in a charged coil for a field input. pardon amay my spelling >



>E-Bomb: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/ebomb.html


Time Magazine article, Rumsfeld said that E-bombs can unleash in a flash as much electrical power—2 billion watts or more—as the Hoover Dam generates in 24 hours.

Shrinking quarter technology...
http://205.243.100.155/frames/Shrinking_History.htm

Fussion reactions produce neutrons - lots of neutrons. Some of these will be fast neutrons and some will be thermal neutrons but all of them have the potential of making other elements radioactive. Iron can become Iron-55, Nickel can be transformed to Nickel-63 etc. Waste is going to be a very real problem in a Fussion reactor.

Fussion energy is not a pipe-dream but if it is based on the current methods (Tokamak, Elmo Bumpy Torus, Shiva Laser) it is going to take a tremendous amount of work to bring it to a practical level.

Doctor Bill

Seen from a engineering standpoint the Tokamak is by far the easiest to build but also the most crumbersome and HUGE, if it is gonna be selfsustaining, on the other hand their is not much that would surprice builders of a Tokamak reactor (It has the form of a round hollowed out sausage.) but it should be relative easy to build even if its size would about the same as the Super collider in CERN. and have a fission reactor as a energy provider AND to control the energy flow to and from the reactor.

Sure it will cost loads, but the spin-off science alone will be worth the investment (we'll learn enough just by building it to cover the cost). At the moment Japan and Europe both want to host it, and they both pretty much concluded that they would each build their own if they had to - so it's worth every penny!

Sure it won't be easy, but it's been at the same stage for so long because no-one would finance it. Will it be the cleanest safest energy source? Probably not, but the mark III version may well be.

(I have to be honest though, the energy production is secondary to the physics interest as far as I'm concerned).