Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday November 02 2015, @09:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the fusion-is-still-only-10-years-away dept.

From Yahoo Finance:

Germany is about to start up a monster machine that could revolutionize the way we use energy.
For more than 60 years, scientists have dreamed of a clean, inexhaustible energy source in the form of nuclear fusion.

And they're still dreaming.

But thanks to the efforts of the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, experts hope that might soon change.

Last year, after 1.1 million construction hours, the institute completed the world's largest nuclear-fusion machine of its kind, called a stellarator.

The machine, which has a diameter of 52 feet, is called the W7-X.
[...]
Check out this awesome time-lapse video of the construction of W7-X on Youtube.

Additional information can be found at this referenced article from Science .


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Monday November 02 2015, @09:29PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 02 2015, @09:29PM (#257699) Journal

    And this won't even be a net positive reactor. I mean, I get it, we need to experiment and learn more, but that's quite a bit of money.

    • (Score: 1) by modest on Monday November 02 2015, @09:57PM

      by modest (3494) on Monday November 02 2015, @09:57PM (#257706)

      I read that the goal is to extend the period of time a reactor can sustain plasma. I don't physics (at this level), but wouldn't sustaining the plasma for a longer period of time would mean a positive reactor could be created with this design?

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Monday November 02 2015, @10:04PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 02 2015, @10:04PM (#257709) Journal

        Yes and no. It certainly could be a contributing factor to that because the warm-up and cool-down periods on reactors eat a lot of power. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the design will yield any sort of meaningful productive capacity. The technical limits of extracting the produced energy alone could prove excessively problematic.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @12:51AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @12:51AM (#257762)

        Fusion research is fundamentally flawed and always will be. Until we can compress space like the tremendous gravitational fields inside stars, fusion is doomed to fail. You simply cannot hope to replace gravity with magnets and think you'll get the same result. Gravity takes no energy to sustain. Magnetic fields take energy to create. The net energy result will ALWAYS be negative. But hey, what's another few billion spent on a dead end between friends.

        • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:38AM

          by art guerrilla (3082) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:38AM (#257776)

          huh! shows what you know: i got some of them neodime, or sumpin magnets, and they is not only *strong*, jack, they is PERMANENT ! ! !
          get you a metal sphere, smack them magnets all around, and, viola, as the frogs say, containment for about $25 of magnets off aliexpress...

        • (Score: 2) by VortexCortex on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:54AM

          by VortexCortex (4067) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:54AM (#257780)

          Gravity takes no energy to sustain

          Consider that matter is energy...

          Magnetic fields take energy to create.

          Explain why the bar magnet on my refrigerator requires to batteries to generate a field. Then you will be enlightened.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:05AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:05AM (#257785)

            To make your bar magnet, somebody had to heat a bit of metal, in which the magnetic domains were randomly aligned, above its Curie point in the presence of a magnetic field, then cool it. I would assume that aligning the domains reduces the entropy within the metal, thereby increasing the entropy elsewhere.

            Now, sustaining the magnetic field is a different matter.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 02 2015, @10:08PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday November 02 2015, @10:08PM (#257711) Journal

      All of the big investments will be made obsolete by smaller reactor designs:

      http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/lockheed-martin-compact-fusion-reactor.html [nextbigfuture.com]
      http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/helion-energy-raised-109-million-and.html [nextbigfuture.com]
      http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/general-fusion-successfully.html [nextbigfuture.com]
      http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/tri-alpha-energy-targets-1-second.html [nextbigfuture.com]
      http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/lpp-fusion-closes-last-of-2-million.html [nextbigfuture.com]
      http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/near-term-commercial-fusion-power.html [nextbigfuture.com]
      http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/patent-details-for-nuclear-fusion-using.html [nextbigfuture.com]

      Lockheed Martin, Helion, General Fusion, Tri Alpha Energy, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, and a design from University of Gothenburg and the University of Iceland are listed above.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Monday November 02 2015, @11:31PM

        by edIII (791) on Monday November 02 2015, @11:31PM (#257743)

        Those are all nuclear fusion. I have high hopes for Thorium reactors, which can be small scale too IIRC.

        Too much research money is tasked to large centralized systems, that are obviously very conducive to setting up power monopolies in the form of utility companies. In the future I'm hoping industry and some commercial locations will use fusion, but by and large, residential and small businesses will be powered by small point source Thorium reactors, or other environmentally beneficial technologies.

        Will never happen, but that's because the chances of one of us going crazy and building a nuke to kill the rest is... well... not zero. To me that says everything about the average mental health of human beings. It's insufficient to either operate or be in the presence of higher technologies like nuclear fission.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by gnuman on Tuesday November 03 2015, @04:27AM

          by gnuman (5013) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @04:27AM (#257813)

          I have high hopes for Thorium reactors, which can be small scale too IIRC.

          You are then wrong. As someone that actually knows quite a bit about nuclear physics, let me just tell you that thorium == uranium for all intents and purposes. Actually, uranium is *bred* (created) inside the "thorium reactor" as the first step in the process of generating energy. The *only* two benefits of using thorium is,

              1. slightly less heavy "waste" in the reaction chain, and
              2. some nations, like India, have lots of thorium but no uranium. So thorium is good for India

          That's about it.

          For everything else, you can make the same things with uranium as you do with thorium. Thorium reactors *require* fast neutron reactors, and almost all modern reactors are only thermal (low energy) neutron reactors because they are easier to design. Fast neutron reactors will be required to burn the current "nuclear waste". In those reactors you can stick in thorium, uranium, current fission waste, reprocessed fuel, plutonium, etc. All negatives of uranium, like Fukushima style meltdowns, are the same in thorium. If you want to avoid meltdowns, you need passive safe reactors, which has as much to do with thorium as my phone has to do with air I breathe.

          So, there is no "thorium reactors" per say. Heck, some of current reactors can and do already burn thorium. And when refueled, they burn uranium. And when refueled they burn plutonium, or mix of the three.

          And you certain do not want any of these as "small scale". Larger reactors allow you to minimize capital costs per MW. There is also much less issues with security of the materials.

          Large scale is even more important in fusion reactors, where containment energy requirements scale at a slower rate than energy production. And no, there is no magic science to get around that, unless you believe in cold fusion.

          Too much research money is tasked to large centralized systems

          I guess you missed the billions and billions of dollars spent on solar and wind. Even without government subsidies, wind and solar make sense in many, many locations. Large centralized systems are actually taking a hit because utilities don't want to invest in future, just milk what they have until it literally falls apart.

          • (Score: 2) by G-forze on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:38AM

            by G-forze (1276) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:38AM (#257858)

            How about not needing huge pressure vessels, since molten salt thorium reactors work at atmospheric pressure? That alone enables far smaller and safer reactors. Maybe you meant that this is possible with pure uranium reactors too? In that case, my question is; why isn't that being done?

            Another huge advantage of thorium is not needing to enrich the fuel, which makes it much easier and cheaper to produce.

            All negatives of uranium, like Fukushima style meltdowns, are the same in thorium.

            The LFTR design is supposed to be walk away safe. Care to explain why that is not the case?

            --
            If I run into the term "SJW", I stop reading.
          • (Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:52PM

            by iamjacksusername (1479) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:52PM (#257947)

            I always thought building fast breeders at existing reactor locations would make a lot of sense. Yucca Mountain is no longer viable; most reactor waste is stored in concrete pods at the reactor sites. Focusing new reactor construction on existing reactor sites would solve two major political and environmental barriers to new reactor construction.

            1. By building breeders at existing locations, the "waste" fuel from existing reactors would have a short trip to the breeder location, reducing potential transport security (proliferation) and accidental contamination... e.g., a train full of waste de-railing in a populated area.

            2. Selecting new nuclear sites is a political non-starter. Re-using existing sites would make it much more likely to see construction in my lifetime.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday November 03 2015, @09:00PM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday November 03 2015, @09:00PM (#258132) Homepage
            Don't traditional uranium reactors burn uranium-235 or uranium-238? And thorium reactors produce uranium-233 in their decay chain?
            OK, it's theoretically possible to hop between the u-235 chain and the u-233 one, but fission happens very readily with 233, so thorium does not generally follow the same set of reactions, output, byproducts, and waste materials as u-235. So they aren't essentially the same.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 02 2015, @10:27PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday November 02 2015, @10:27PM (#257718)

      Yes, and no. Spend a billion Euros on conventional clean energy development in Germany and what do you get? A bunch of solar panels in a sub-optimal latitude and some wind turbines along the coast.

      Spend a billion Euros on fusion plasma containment and what do you get? Possibly something as important to the next 600 years of life on Earth as Fat Man and Little Boy were to the last 60.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday November 02 2015, @10:50PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 02 2015, @10:50PM (#257724) Journal

        Well, I'll admit, pie-in-the-sky research is a necessary activity. That's just a big price tag to swallow, even if I'm American and don't have to pay a Euro of it.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 02 2015, @10:56PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday November 02 2015, @10:56PM (#257729)

          Compared to the LHC and ITER, a Billion is peanuts for massive fundamental physics research these days.
          Your problem if you don't pay a Euro for it (unlike the previous two), is that you don't get any claims if they actually do find something.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday November 02 2015, @10:56PM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday November 02 2015, @10:56PM (#257730) Journal

          It's 12.50 Euro per German inhabitant.

          Stated that way, it doesn't sound particularly expensive.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:23PM

          by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:23PM (#257928) Journal
          To put that in perspective, it's about the same cost as sending the space shuttle into orbit and bringing it back to Earth twice.
          --
          sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Monday November 02 2015, @11:02PM

        by Francis (5544) on Monday November 02 2015, @11:02PM (#257732)

        Fat Man. Little Boy. Surely there's a Jared from Subway joke in there somewhere.

      • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:44AM

        by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:44AM (#257791) Homepage

        What you'd get for your billion Euros would be an hundred thousand homes that would have a net zero energy consumption for basically forever. Not too shabby.

        While I'm all for basic research and applaud the efforts of this project...it's insulting to sell it as a financially viable path to energy production. Do it for the same reason we run the LHC: to learn more about what makes the Universe tick. Isn't that enough?

        Even the wildest most optimistic schemes for both fusion and fission power production are ludicrously more expensive than what we already have today in off-the-shelf solar power. Sure, so the fuels for the power plants are as cheap as water or dirt. So what? Solar doesn't even have that expense, and it has zero maintenance and operations costs, and the equipment is orders of magnitude cheaper, and it's literally no more hazardous than a plate glass window. Nor can you weaponize it, nor is it a target for terrorists, nor do you have the NIMBY problem, nor is there any government regulation. And, oh-by-the-way, it also doesn't rely on theoretical physics that hasn't ever actually been demonstrated to work as hoped for, or multi-billion-dollar government research projects just to figure out if theory actually represents reality at all.

        In stark contrast...solar is simply a matter of calling a contractor and saying, "Make it so!" -- or, if you've got adequate DIY home improvement roofing and DC electrician skills, going to your local home improvement store, coming home with the kit, and spending a week or so on your roof and in your attic. And that's all today, not some vague hope of commercializing it at utility scales before the end of the century...but today, right now.

        So, yeah. Do the research for the sake of doing research.

        But if your goal is limitless power too cheap to meter...well, if that's your goal and you don't already have it for yourself, either it's because you don't have the financial wherewithal for home ownership, or because you're an idiot holding out for a pew-pew laaaaazer sparkle unicorn fart fantasy.

        Cheers,

        b&

        --
        All but God can prove this sentence true.
        • (Score: 1, Troll) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 03 2015, @03:47AM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @03:47AM (#257798)

          So, you're saying that 10K Euros makes "free energy forever" for a house?

          Check the actual lifespan of a solar panel, or storage battery, or wind turbine gearbox. These things require manufacture, maintenance, and recycling of the used up parts, and all of that requires energy too. Solar and wind are weak tea compared to fission, cover the entire roof of a suburban home at 20 watts per square foot (peak) and solar still can't satisfy sunbelt demands for cooling, nor northern demands for heating, especially in winter when there's little solar radiation to capture. Wind can be good power when it's blowing, unfortunately most of us don't live in Western Nebraska.

          Fission can be done about an order of magnitude SAFER than we are currently doing it, if we had the political will to build new plants instead of rehabilitating old ones. Fusion promises to take the ick out of fission, and that should get past our current political problems with nuclear energy. Spending a few tens of billions on convincing people that nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels? I'd call that a very good investment, much better than the 60 billion we recently spent to "politically stabilize" some oil fields.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 4, Informative) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday November 03 2015, @04:02AM

            by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday November 03 2015, @04:02AM (#257807) Homepage

            cover the entire roof of a suburban home at 20 watts per square foot (peak) and solar still can't satisfy sunbelt demands for cooling

            Bullshit.

            Pure, unadulterated, weapons-grade bullshit.

            I live in a modest suburban home with more than a third but well less than half of the roof covered in run-of-the-mill Kyocera solar panels, and I generate half again as much electricity as I use -- enough to power an electric vehicle for free when I finally get one.

            Including cooling.

            Including summer cooling.

            Including summer cooling with daytime highs well over 110°F and overnight lows over 90°F.

            Including summer cooling for weeks at a time with daytime highs well over 110°F and overnight lows over 90°F.

            Oh -- and this is an home built during the Carter administration, with very little in the way of energy efficiency improvements. I've put in double-pane windows and had a lot of insulation blown in the attic, but it's a far cry from anything LEED would certify today.

            Whatever the Koch Brothers are paying you to spew such FUD...they sure as hell ain't getting their money's worth.

            Cheers,

            b&

            --
            All but God can prove this sentence true.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @03:30PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @03:30PM (#257969)

              I don't think it's paid FUD. Lots of people sincerely believe that. I had solar panels put up recently, not even enough to fully cover my south-facing roof, and I'm generating more energy than I use in a year. One of my neighbors - same size house, built at the same time - talked to me about it. I found out their electricity bill was more than _double_ what mine had been before the solar panels. I haven't been able to figure out how they managed to get it that high (without grow-lamps, anyway). But it seems fairly common for people to have huge electricity bills, even in fairly modern houses, so the GP might be one of them.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:12AM

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:12AM (#258272)

                When I lived alone in Miami, during non AC months the power company charged me less for usage than their "customer charge" and other fixed fees - my total bill was running under $20 per month. Add a wife and two kids, double the size of the house, and now we're lucky to see the bill under $200 per month. More hot water, more people in and out of the refrigerator, and more months with the AC on 24/7.

                AC is the big one, if you're trying to keep a house at 72 degrees in Florida, you're going to have some pretty impressive bills in the summer. We shoot for 76, and still see over $350 some months.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:06AM

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:06AM (#258270)

              I live in a 2000 square foot house in Florida, I've lived 4 similar Florida houses over the past couple of decades. Our power bills run about $0.10 per square foot per month most of the year, up to $0.20 psf during the hottest summer months. The power company (and my "smart" thermostat) says our consumption is "average for our neighborhood." Our cost of electricity is about $0.11/kWh, give or take. So, we need a little less than 2 kilowatt hours per square foot of conditioned space per month during peak loads, call it 2kwh to account for storage losses. If your panels are delivering 20 watts per square foot and they cover the same area as the house, then you only need 100 hours of pure noon equivalent sun per month to make it work, 3.3 hours a day, plus enough storage capacity to pull through nights and cloudy (but still hot enough to require AC) days.

              Most panels don't deliver a full 20 watts per square foot as installed, and most systems aren't equipped with enough storage capacity to carry across 2 or 3 cloudy 90 degree days.

              If you're getting all the cooling you need from 30% roof coverage, you live in a lower cooling demand location than Florida, or you have your panels on tracking mounts to get more than 9 hours a day of sunlight on average.

              We have trees, which lowers our cooling bills, but also reduces our solar collection potential to less than 6 hours a day in most locations on our roof and in our yard.

              As for northern latitudes, their heat energy demands are even higher than Florida's cooling demands, plus they get much less sun in the winter, when they need the energy the most.

              Solar is getting better, if it were free I would definitely have it on my roof, but it's not _the_ answer.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 03 2015, @03:54AM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @03:54AM (#257801)

          Oh, separately, as to why I don't have my own solar power farm: trees.

          We like our trees, our trees provide shade and some semblance of an ecosystem around our home (birds, squirrels, etc.)

          Trees screw up solar power ROI something fierce, all they have to do is shade the roof for 30% of the day and all those carefully calculated subsidies turn from profit to loss.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday November 03 2015, @10:15AM

          by Dunbal (3515) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @10:15AM (#257869)

          No, what you'd get for a billion Euros is a failed project that produced dubious research and a request for 10 billion Euros for more research.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @11:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @11:15PM (#257737)

      Jeez, I mean we could put that billion towards the J35 jet and get a reasonable $1.301 trillion budget instead of the pathetic $1.3 trillion it has currently.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by radu on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:16AM

      by radu (1919) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:16AM (#257856)

      A billion euros

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org] : $610.096 billion - each year!

    • (Score: 2) by bootsy on Tuesday November 03 2015, @06:29PM

      by bootsy (3440) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @06:29PM (#258035)

      1 Billion euros is nothing at the moment:

      Hellenic Financial Stability Fund is ready to inject the 10 billion euros

      see https://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/with-the-greek-banks-recapitalising-again-who-will-lend-to-consumers-and-businesses/ [wordpress.com]

      In Europe we are chucking these sums around bailing out banks who have lent money for stupidly over priced houses amongst other things.

      Actually spending this on some blue sky science projects seems very good in comparison.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Adamsjas on Monday November 02 2015, @09:35PM

    by Adamsjas (4507) on Monday November 02 2015, @09:35PM (#257701)

    First link is pretty full of CPU sucking animations. Maxed out 4 cores in milliseconds.

    Quote: the institute completed the world's largest nuclear-fusion machine of its kind

    Well its the only one of its kind.
    So far nobody has demonstrated sustainable controlled nuclear fusion. This is just another large research
    reactor that is not expected to break-even on its energy budget.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by ikanreed on Monday November 02 2015, @09:58PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 02 2015, @09:58PM (#257707) Journal

      It's part of the plan. They figure if they can put enough high density animations close enough together, they'll fuse and emit subanimated particles with a net positive frame production. It works in theory.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Monday November 02 2015, @10:45PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday November 02 2015, @10:45PM (#257722) Homepage

      First link is pretty full of CPU sucking animations. Maxed out 4 cores in milliseconds.

      Not for me. Max of 19% while loading, now chugging along at 3-5% with the page open.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:26PM

        by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:26PM (#257930) Journal
        Same here. Maybe the grandparent has some malware injecting stuff into his page.
        --
        sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @10:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @10:49PM (#257723)

      Quote: the institute completed the world's largest nuclear-fusion machine of its kind [called a stellarator]

      Well its the only one of its kind.

      According to TFA:

      The largest working stellarator is the Large Helical Device (LHD) in Toki, Japan, which began operating in 1998.

      So no, this is not the only one of its kind. Presumably, if this new machine works, it will supplant the LHD as the largest working stellarator.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Monday November 02 2015, @11:02PM

      by fritsd (4586) on Monday November 02 2015, @11:02PM (#257733) Journal

      AFAIK this is a different kind of design from a Tokamak.

      The ITER Tokamak reactor is supposed to be doing its "near production scale" experiments in the coming decade, and for a more than 10 billion euro pricetag.
      It's supposed to break-even and experiment with how the hell you harvest all that energy from the plasma, and what materials get ridiculously radioactive or brittle, and how to make Tritium, etc.

      So that the next reactor after that, DEMO, can use the "lessons learned" and be commercially viable (after an debt payoff period of several hundred years, maybe ;-) )

  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @10:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @10:04PM (#257708)

    The Black Sun Rises!

  • (Score: 2) by VanderDecken on Monday November 02 2015, @11:25PM

    by VanderDecken (5216) on Monday November 02 2015, @11:25PM (#257740)

    I want my Mr. Fusion. Please?

    --
    The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @11:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @11:27PM (#257741)

    Loads of sleazy confusing hyperbole with zero substance.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:11AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:11AM (#257787)

      It's about The German Sun. What were you expecting?