Looking for a net gain in the energy sector

Give him $50 million, he says, and within four years he and his small team of scientists and engineers at General Fusion will show a world trying to wean itself off carbon-based fuels how to fuse atoms on the cheap. Full Story »

Posted by Katie Rose
Tags Help
Subjects: World, Business, Sci/Tech
Topics: Canada, Energy, Science
Member Tags: cold fusion
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Katie Rose - Apr 21, 2009 - 1:13 PM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Katie Rose - Apr 21, 2009 - 1:13 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Mike LaBonte
3.5
by Mike LaBonte - Apr. 21, 2009

General Fusion is the primary source here, and the only balancing viewpoint has minimal representation. The technical description is quite good, although you have to wade through the entrepreneurial story first.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Katie Rose
3.7
by Katie Rose - Apr. 21, 2009

Not having heard of the Toronto Star before reading this article, I can not vouch for its credibility. So when the author seems biased against the laser-based fusion attempts by the US and other nations in favor of the speculative Canadian fusion attempt, I am uneasy. However, his description of the fusion generator is clear and understandable. He also includes quite a bit about the policies that are helping (money donations) and hindering (lack of infrastructure) the progression of scientific exploration into alternative energies. While the author makes it seem like fusion has always been considered feasible (if unexplored effectively), that isn't actually the case. It has been dismissed more than embraced, because of its ... More »

I've always wanted cold fusion to be a feasible alternative energy source. Let's hope they succeed!

See Full Review » (20 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.6

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (20% confidence)
Quality
3.6
Facts
3.5
Fairness
3.0
Information
5.0
Insight
3.0
Sourcing
2.5
Style
3.5
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
3.0
Context
3.5
Depth
3.5
Enterprise
3.0
Expertise
4.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
5.0
Transparency
3.0
Responsibility
3.0
Popularity
3.6
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!