I'm sure most saw the article in today's NY Times on "table top fusion". (For those who haven't...) http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Tabletop-Fusion.html?hp&ex=1114660800&en=6ac101f390e18d4d&ei=5094&partner=homepage [Broken] And the article does mention that this experiment doesn't do much in the way of offering a solution to our energy problems, at least not this week, or even this year, but then again, over enough time, who knows? What worries me about fusion is that I don't understand the process very well. I really don't want to start a thread that's going to devolve into a debunking argument, but I've got a question, and I was hoping someone in here would know a bit more about this than I do (not exactly a stretch). K; from what I understand you take a pair (actually lots of pairs) of deuterium atoms (which are basically weird hydrogen atoms, hydrogen atoms from "heavy water"), you smack 'em together, or squeeze 'em together almost too tightly to imagine, and you get a helium atom along with one incredible amount of energy. What bugs me about this idea is that it seems to turn hydrogen into helium, and you NEED hydrogen. Without hydrogen ya can't have water. Now assuming fusion power actually does become practical, I can see where a few fusion power plants eating up hydrogen wouldn't be a problem, but... If you got to the point where fusion power was the *primary* "power source of the future", where dammed near everything on the planet was dependent on it, wouldn't that start to... well... dehydrate our beautiful little blue world? Or is it the case that even having to generate ten times the amount of power we use now would require such miniscule amounts of hydrogen that it wouldn't really have any measurable effect on how much hydrogen is around, let alone start to threaten to "dehydrate" the planet?