Re: Fusion energy was: SNOW JOB

On  7-Feb-02 at 05:42, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
(KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de)
wrote: 

> Whatever way you cut it, and even assuming extremely poor
efficiencies, 
> with a nuclear engine you wouldn't have to worry about refuelling for 
> the foreseeable mechanical lifetime of the tank. This holds even for 
> any energy use which we can realistically asses (e.g.GEV mobility or 
> Laser guns). 

I'm betting that whatever way you dice it fuel is so plentiful and
easy to extract that once you get beyond the point where it is
commercially viable development will cease.  If you told a power 
plant company they would burn 1000 Liters of water a day to
supply the electricity to London they would jump on it.  There
would be no incentive to make it any more efficient.  Now, we're
betting on it being made small enough to run an armoured vehicle,
but I bet nobody would really care if it needed the hydrogen
from a liter of water every day.  Once you reach that point there
is no incentive to get better it efficiency will mostly stop
going up.

And no, desert worlds are not a reason if it has humidity you
can extract from the atmosphere.  If it has no humidity you
pick up a comet.