9 ms·

I would love to see a huge effort towards fusion, on the same (or even greater) scale as the Manhattan project or the Apollo program. I had been disappointed i

I would love to see a huge effort towards fusion, on the same (or even greater) scale as the Manhattan project or the Apollo program. I had been disappointed in the way that fusion always seemed to be 30 years away no matter how many years went past, but I just assumed that that was because the science was hard and just the way it had to be. https://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg https://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Winter_2009/Who_Killed_Fusion.pdf https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Winter_... In 1976, a number of plans for investing in fusion were described, and what actually happened was that less was invested in fusion even than the level at which the program plan predicted we would never achieve fusion. This is the kind of thing that anyone who cares about humanity in general should find upsetting. Massively abundant, cheap, clean energy should be one of humanity's top priorities. Working, economic fusion power has a chance to revolutionize life as we know it. The countries that have access to the technology first will be at the forefront of a huge economic, social, cultural, scientific change. It's more important than going to Mars (and would probably make going to Mars significantly easier). It's more important than nearly anything we're working on.

singham 10y ago
Wait for the AI revolution to happen and Singurality to come true. Then AI would devise a fusion reactor for itself and humanity.
kodroid 10y ago
Lets do a fusion kickstarter. All reward levels can be "carbon free energy".
- dest 10y ago
  Perks will be shipped in 30 years!
sonium 10y ago
This might sound a bit like a buzz-kill, but I don't think fusion power is necessarily competitively cheap. I think it will be comparable to nuclear power with a ~ 10 times higher capital investment to build a fusion-plant. Already now solar is said to be cheaper then nuclear. But nevertheless humanity should explore fusion since it is more or less the only significant power source not (indrectly) depending on the sun. As far as I can see the funding of fusion research is at about the same level as particle physics which definilty does not provide any other than philosophical progress.
- mSparks 10y ago
  This is the one thing I wholly side with the conspiracy crew on. Energy is one big scam, all energy sources are artificially suppressed and sold at grossely inflated prices.
- arethuza 10y ago
  I agree - always been a bit mystified when fusion power is described as "cheap", fuel isn't a big component of the cost of fission power plants so even if the fuel is low cost it won't save you that much money. [I guess decommissioning costs might be lower but are they actually included in the costs of operating normal nuclear plants?]
  - adrianN 10y ago
    I bet regulatory compliance is a big chunk of the costs. Those regulations are bound to be much more strict for a fission plant that can potentially blow up and contaminate a large area compared to a fusion plant with a safe failure mode by default (the plasma just shuts down).
  - Symmetry 10y ago
    The worst case scenarios for an accident at a fusion plant aren't nearly as bad as those at a fission plant so you should be able to get by with somewhat less in terms of paranoid safety measures and overbuilding.
  - Ygg2 10y ago
    Aren't large part of that actually the waste disposal costs? With Fusion you in theory, avoid radioactive waste.
- andygates 10y ago
  The very high cost of fission has a lot to do with how nasty, awkward, long-lasting and expensive the fuel and waste are. We really won't know until we try building a power plant.
  - 10y ago
tomw2005 10y ago
My Physics of Electrical Power Generation lecturer told us pretty flatly that we should not expect or bank on fusion power in our lifetimes. He said we should concentrate on renewables (which seems to be the way most countries are going in Europe at least).
- kybernetikos 10y ago
  This is absolutely sensible at the current level of investment. The question is whether it would remain true with a big infusion of money or not.
kbart 10y ago
"Massively abundant, cheap, clean energy should be one of humanity's top priorities." Not while most of the biggest economies on Earth relies on extracting and selling resources to satisfy civilizations energy needs.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  And when the party coming into power wants to go back to coal and drill all of our oil reserves.
ryanSrich 10y ago
I was under the impression that fusion is held back by two major things. 1.) cost. It's incredibly expensive 2.) speculation. We don't _really_ know if it'll work yet.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Re: 2) it's already working, it's just the energy in isn't less than the energy out yet (but it's constantly getting better). Harnessing fossil fuels for cheap energy was so revolutionary that it's necessary for almost all aspects of our life. It would be great to do that with hydrogen too.
  - gph 10y ago
    I get what your saying, but I wouldn't consider something to be working if it requires more energy in than it produces. It's not like people are questioning whether we could ever produce a fusion reaction. We're questioning whether it's actually viable as an energy source.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      "Not efficient" is a far cry from being "speculative", though.
marze 10y ago
For an early glimpse of this fusion powered future upopia, check out the power of present day fusion power. New generation is coming online at 2.5 cents US per kWh. Compare that to retail electric rates of 15 cents / kWh in parts of the US. Incredible! And this new fusion power is completely clean and emission free, and what's more, generates no nuclear waste whatsoever! Worst case accident: oops, Fred dropped a solar panel on his toe.
- Retric 10y ago
  Roof mounted solar has relatively high fatality rates from people falling off roofs. However, ground mounted solar panels are much safer.
motoboi 10y ago
> Massively abundant, cheap, clean energy should be one of humanity's top priorities. What about the big fusion reactor in the Sky? Shouldn't we go all in on solar? Why is so difficult to harness that source? Maybe the same obstacles make fusion so difficult to pursue.
- Cerium 10y ago
  Yes, we already have a clean fusion reactor with wireless power transfer to every location on earth (weaker signal at poles). All we need to invent is the wireless energy receiver!
  - Reason077 10y ago
    The tilt and rotation of the earth also has a blocking effect, resulting in significant seasonal and daily variations in signal strength. Weather phenomena also effects it in many areas. Still, the virtually unlimited energy available via this means is making it increasingly promising. Moving forward, storage technology will help overcome some of the limitations.
    - theandrewbailey 10y ago
      Said variations cause significant motion in the fluid surrounding the receivers. Building alternative secondary receivers to extract this indirect energy can yield additional gains.
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    All we need to invent is the wireless energy receiver! We did, and we've already hit the quantum limit of how efficient they can be. It isn't enough. Well it is enough, but there isn't an efficient method to store or transmit the captured power. Solar is awesome, but the places it is most available also happens to be where it is least needed, in general, I'm aware of Saudi Arabia. It should also be pointed out that Solar is the most [1] green house gas producing method of green energy. Wind, Nuclear, Hydro-Electric, and Tidal are all vastly more carbon efficient. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...
rodgerd 10y ago
> I would love to see a huge effort towards fusion, on the same (or even greater) scale as the Manhattan project or the Apollo program. You are. It's just not happening in the US, which has apparently decided that since coal was good enough for the 19th century, it's good enough for the 21st.

singham 10y ago

Wait for the AI revolution to happen and Singurality to come true. Then AI would devise a fusion reactor for itself and humanity.

kodroid 10y ago

Lets do a fusion kickstarter. All reward levels can be "carbon free energy".

dest 10y ago
Perks will be shipped in 30 years!

sonium 10y ago

This might sound a bit like a buzz-kill, but I don't think fusion power is necessarily competitively cheap. I think it will be comparable to nuclear power with a ~ 10 times higher capital investment to build a fusion-plant. Already now solar is said to be cheaper then nuclear. But nevertheless humanity should explore fusion since it is more or less the only significant power source not (indrectly) depending on the sun. As far as I can see the funding of fusion research is at about the same level as particle physics which definilty does not provide any other than philosophical progress.

mSparks 10y ago
This is the one thing I wholly side with the conspiracy crew on. Energy is one big scam, all energy sources are artificially suppressed and sold at grossely inflated prices.
arethuza 10y ago
I agree - always been a bit mystified when fusion power is described as "cheap", fuel isn't a big component of the cost of fission power plants so even if the fuel is low cost it won't save you that much money. [I guess decommissioning costs might be lower but are they actually included in the costs of operating normal nuclear plants?]
- adrianN 10y ago
  I bet regulatory compliance is a big chunk of the costs. Those regulations are bound to be much more strict for a fission plant that can potentially blow up and contaminate a large area compared to a fusion plant with a safe failure mode by default (the plasma just shuts down).
- Symmetry 10y ago
  The worst case scenarios for an accident at a fusion plant aren't nearly as bad as those at a fission plant so you should be able to get by with somewhat less in terms of paranoid safety measures and overbuilding.
- Ygg2 10y ago
  Aren't large part of that actually the waste disposal costs? With Fusion you in theory, avoid radioactive waste.
andygates 10y ago
The very high cost of fission has a lot to do with how nasty, awkward, long-lasting and expensive the fuel and waste are. We really won't know until we try building a power plant.
- 10y ago

tomw2005 10y ago

My Physics of Electrical Power Generation lecturer told us pretty flatly that we should not expect or bank on fusion power in our lifetimes. He said we should concentrate on renewables (which seems to be the way most countries are going in Europe at least).

kybernetikos 10y ago
This is absolutely sensible at the current level of investment. The question is whether it would remain true with a big infusion of money or not.

kbart 10y ago

"Massively abundant, cheap, clean energy should be one of humanity's top priorities." Not while most of the biggest economies on Earth relies on extracting and selling resources to satisfy civilizations energy needs.

seanp2k2 10y ago
And when the party coming into power wants to go back to coal and drill all of our oil reserves.

ryanSrich 10y ago

I was under the impression that fusion is held back by two major things. 1.) cost. It's incredibly expensive 2.) speculation. We don't _really_ know if it'll work yet.

bduerst 10y ago
Re: 2) it's already working, it's just the energy in isn't less than the energy out yet (but it's constantly getting better). Harnessing fossil fuels for cheap energy was so revolutionary that it's necessary for almost all aspects of our life. It would be great to do that with hydrogen too.
- gph 10y ago
  I get what your saying, but I wouldn't consider something to be working if it requires more energy in than it produces. It's not like people are questioning whether we could ever produce a fusion reaction. We're questioning whether it's actually viable as an energy source.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    "Not efficient" is a far cry from being "speculative", though.

marze 10y ago

For an early glimpse of this fusion powered future upopia, check out the power of present day fusion power. New generation is coming online at 2.5 cents US per kWh. Compare that to retail electric rates of 15 cents / kWh in parts of the US. Incredible! And this new fusion power is completely clean and emission free, and what's more, generates no nuclear waste whatsoever! Worst case accident: oops, Fred dropped a solar panel on his toe.

Retric 10y ago
Roof mounted solar has relatively high fatality rates from people falling off roofs. However, ground mounted solar panels are much safer.

motoboi 10y ago

> Massively abundant, cheap, clean energy should be one of humanity's top priorities. What about the big fusion reactor in the Sky? Shouldn't we go all in on solar? Why is so difficult to harness that source? Maybe the same obstacles make fusion so difficult to pursue.

Cerium 10y ago
Yes, we already have a clean fusion reactor with wireless power transfer to every location on earth (weaker signal at poles). All we need to invent is the wireless energy receiver!
- Reason077 10y ago
  The tilt and rotation of the earth also has a blocking effect, resulting in significant seasonal and daily variations in signal strength. Weather phenomena also effects it in many areas. Still, the virtually unlimited energy available via this means is making it increasingly promising. Moving forward, storage technology will help overcome some of the limitations.
  - theandrewbailey 10y ago
    Said variations cause significant motion in the fluid surrounding the receivers. Building alternative secondary receivers to extract this indirect energy can yield additional gains.
- valarauca1 10y ago
  All we need to invent is the wireless energy receiver! We did, and we've already hit the quantum limit of how efficient they can be. It isn't enough. Well it is enough, but there isn't an efficient method to store or transmit the captured power. Solar is awesome, but the places it is most available also happens to be where it is least needed, in general, I'm aware of Saudi Arabia. It should also be pointed out that Solar is the most [1] green house gas producing method of green energy. Wind, Nuclear, Hydro-Electric, and Tidal are all vastly more carbon efficient. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...

rodgerd 10y ago

> I would love to see a huge effort towards fusion, on the same (or even greater) scale as the Manhattan project or the Apollo program. You are. It's just not happening in the US, which has apparently decided that since coal was good enough for the 19th century, it's good enough for the 21st.