<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hYHCDbf-SlY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hYHCDbf-SlY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Quotes from the video: "Although a lot of power will be required to kick start the reactor, around ten times as much energy could emerge." "The project could provide us with an almost limitless supply of safe, green energy." So, basically, you need seed energy to "kick start" the reactor, and you will get almost 10 times the energy back. That's called Energy returned on Energy Invested (EROEI). Here's a chart for EROEI of other types of energy: So if the EROEI of this type of reactor is 10:1... coal is still more efficient at 50:1. Also, where will you get the "a lot of power will be required to kickstart the reactor" from? I don't undestand how the speaker concludes with "an almost limitless supply of energy" if you need to constantly feed this thing with another source of energy. Right now, oil and coal still provide a better return on energy, so I don't see this being commercially viable for some time.
China has been working on building one for several years now. Anti Matter will probably be the fuel of choice at some point. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15043462/