6 ms·

Whatever the concerns are, the human race should try to get fusion energy to work no matter what. Fusion energy will be a big step in human civilization in prog

by TeeWEE 10y ago

Whatever the concerns are, the human race should try to get fusion energy to work no matter what. Fusion energy will be a big step in human civilization in progress. It basically means unlimited energy at a fraction of the cost. Intelligent live form that has mastered the power of suns. Its good for our planet too. No more global warming. This is hugely important, whatever the cost.

adrianN 10y ago
I agree that we should pursue fusion, but it's not "at a fraction of the cost" if you go for it "whatever the cost". It could very well turn out that fusion plants are so expensive to construct that the energy produced is more expensive than other forms of power generation.
ovi256 10y ago
>No more global warming. Au contraire, my friend. Unlimited cheap energy would bring on, in time, the next type of anthropogenic warming: the temperature of the planet being raised, not by a greenhouse effect, but by the raw power output of all those fusion reactors. Even if a good fraction of their thermal output is transformed into electricity, the electricity always finishes as decay heat, with very few exceptions. The solution for that is to move the Earth farther away from the sun, which reduces solar input. Or injection of coolants such as sulphates in the atmosphere. Even with zero solar input, there's still an upper limit on how much decay heat we can release in the atmosphere without boiling ourselves.
- kentiko 10y ago
  Source? Compare to how much heat we receive from the sun I doubt our activity adds much heat.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    At the moment not really, yes. But he was speaking of the possible scenario with unlimited avaiable energy and therefore much more energy spending ... but I also don't see this as a real concern. Global Human energy output would have to increase by many numbers to make a significant impact.
    - noir_lord 10y ago
      Someone up thread posted the figures, human energy is 12 terawatts, the earth receives 172,000 terawatts a day, replacing all of energy usage with fusion and then doubling it to 24 terawatts would likely result in a cooler planet (since we'd be producing far less carbon dioxide).
- literallycancer 10y ago
  When energy isn't a concern, what stops you from moving the manufacturing into space?
  - xienze 10y ago
    Cost...
    - mkj 10y ago
      Cost is mostly convertible to energy. (And space I guess, for things like real estate)
- jasonjayr 10y ago
  I imagine unlimited cheap energy would help facilitate moving us off this floating rock we call earth. Unlimited cheap energy on any plant would enable us to implement environmental controls, using that energy, so we could build habitats in hostile atmospheres.
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    > I imagine unlimited cheap energy would help facilitate moving us off this floating rock we call earth. With a working small scale fusion reactor we could colonise the entire solar system, the raw materials are all out there but energy is always one of the main issues. I remember reading back in the 80's a plan for extracting metals, creating metal foam that would float and then dropping them into the ocean (some would be lost to rentry heat but it was a tiny percentage) where a drone ship would sail out and tow them in. I would love to see something like that in my lifetime.
- adekok 10y ago
  > the temperature of the planet being raised, not by a greenhouse effect, but by the raw power output of all those fusion reactors. Not that Wikipedia is the best source, but... World energy consumption is about 12 terawatts [1], whereas the Earth receives 172,000 terawatts in the upper atmosphere. [2] The difference is 4 orders of magnitude. i.e. The Earth receives in one day the same power as produced by humans in 10-15 years. I think we're safe. > The solution for that is to move the Earth farther away from the sun That's firmly in the realm of science fiction. The power required to move the earth would be so enormous that it could power human technology for billions of years. i.e. it would be energetically more efficient to use that power to fix the current problem, instead of doing something ridiculous like "move the Earth". --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    To complete your rebuttal to the statement "not by a greenhouse effect, but by the raw power output", it's important to compare the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. It would be easy to draw the wrong conclusion, and think that mankind cannot impact the temperature of the planet because it already gets so much energy from the sun that our actions don't matter. This is incorrect. As you say, the sun provides approximately 172,000 terawatts to the Earth, due to a solar irradiance of 1360 W/m^2 over the planet's cross sectional area of 1.27x10^11 m^2. While this is the correct value for the amount of energy received at the upper atmosphere, only some of it is actually absorbed by the Earth. Currently, approximately 30% of this energy is reflected back to space. Anthropogenic radiative forcing was estimated by the IPCC in 2011 [1] to contribute approximately 2.29 W/m^2. This is the difference in solar energy absorption caused by human activities (such as releasing CO2). Multiplied by the area of the Earth, this is 290 terawatts of energy, which is many times greater than world energy consumption. Also note that this figure is rapidly increasing - compare to 1.25 in 1980 and 0.57 in 1950 in that report, or 1.6 in the 2007 report [2]. [1]: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_..., see page 12 [2]: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm..., see page 4
FlyingAvatar 10y ago
This is an idealized view of fusion energy. Doing it on Earth in a practical manner most likely has tradeoffs, if it is reasonably possible at all in a timeframe that would make it useful. We should research multiple avenues of energy independence (including fusion, and including how to increase conservation/efficiency of use) so that we can make real progress now and not hang our hat on a single magic solution.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I've found that fusion is one of those topics that's exceedingly difficult to discuss with most people. Most people I've met in the tech world know what they've read in popsci articles here and there, and a lot of science fiction. It's rare to run into someone you can sit down and talk about resonances with, the challenges neutron bombardment, why aneutronic pathways are so difficult to achieve, etc... If you know a little about fusion, it's very exciting and seems very real and very close. If you know a lot about fusion, it's exciting, but you realize that the odds of practical fusion power plants in our lifetimes are extremely low. The problem is that to get someone from one state of knowledge to the other requires their active participation, and most people see that as "pissing on their enthusiasm".
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    I don't know a huge amount about fusion beyond following some of the projects and reading what they are up to. What did you make of the German (mainly) Stellarator[1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      It's one of the most inspiring bits of practical experimental science in our lifetimes I think, but I'm a big fan. That's not to say that it's putting us on the cusp of fusion reactors, but it's definitely going to help the understanding of how plasma at high temps and under strong magnetic fields acts. The best analogy I've heard is "Like trying to squeeze a balloon into a given shape with your bare hands." There is a strong tendency for constriction in one part of the plasma to cause it to flare in another region, which lowers the temperature of the plasma (bad) and can touch the reactor chamber (terrible!). The ideal would be a total understanding of just how and where to "squeeze" the plasma with magnetic fields, so that the least possible input of energy is required and the plasma would essentially stabilize itself. The problem is that the ability to model that on a computer is only just coming along, and the W7-X is a big step forward in uniting those new models with a practical experiment. Does it solve issues of breeding Tritium, diverting plasma, resisting atomic sputtering? No, but it does hopefully move forward the understanding of the underlying plasma physics.
dkural 10y ago
Those costs are born by real people, who have other needs such as education, healthcare, sanitation, nutrition etc. If you truly believe "whatever the cost", start by donating most of your salary. After all, you could live somewhere smaller, consume less stuff, not take any days off, etc. It's so important for human civilization to progress, right? Second issue: There are cheaper ways to produce no greenhouse gases than fusion energy, today. Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Geothermal, Wave, Hydro are all mostly CO2 free, just like Fusion. However, these technologies compete in the (very distorted) energy markets, have some environmental impact, social impact, and there is too low a cost to simply poisoning our air quality with cheap coal. Our grid designs are outdated, the way we regulate our utilities & their incentives also don't align. Third issue: Fusion is well understood, plasma physics, the structure of magnetic fields etc. is the real issue, as other commenters have outlined. There was a mistake in our understanding of how even our microwave oven's fields are contained via the tiny Faraday Cage around them. Even Feynman was wrong about it: https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/surprises-of-the-faraday-cage https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/surprises-of-the-farada...
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  From that article: > Q3. Somebody must design microwave oven doors based on laboratory measurements. Where are these people? They're (1) deep inside large corporations like GE, LG, Sharp, and others - they have non-disclosure agreements, keycard locks on the doors to neighboring departments, and strict firewalls on their network connections. They don't publish, which is probably a foreign concept to this Oxford professor. And (2) they are cannot afford to be this curious, they are time-constrained and budget-driven, which is also fundamentally alien to this professor's tenure-based worldview. They have to pass CE/FCC emissions regulations, and if a trial of a larger grid spacing or lower gauge says the device fails, that's the conclusion of the matter - put in the stuff that worked before. They certainly don't have a year to devote to understanding the fundamentals of Faraday cages.
  - Gravityloss 10y ago
    On the other hand, people have gotten curious in the past. If I wanted to hire innovative top talent, I would expect them to have interests outside the immediate company project requirements. Actually most good ideas come from domain experts and not some business managers. Furthermore, many people just naturally like to share their ideas and discoveries to the world.
reacweb 10y ago
Solar energy is already almost unlimited. Cost of solar panels are regularly decreasing and power storage is improving. If the surface of earth becomes tiny, we can put factories on the moon (or in orbit) with this same cheap energy. Maybe the search of fusion is the cause we have never encountered aliens.
- baq 10y ago
  fusion + solar is what we need. solar alone requires lots of investment into energy storage, which is a very hard problem to do at scale. fusion (or cleaner fission, if that's possible - thorium maybe?) base load helps quite a bit.
mikeash 10y ago
I hope you're right, and I think you might be, but keep in mind that much the same was said about fission power in the 1950s. The classic phrase was that electricity would become "too cheap to meter." This wasn't an outrageous assumption given how cheap fuel costs were. But it turned out that running real-world nuclear plants had enough other costs to not be much, if any, improvement over other sources of power. Fusion fuel is really cheap, but that doesn't necessarily mean that fusion power will be.

by TeeWEE 10y ago

adrianN 10y ago

I agree that we should pursue fusion, but it's not "at a fraction of the cost" if you go for it "whatever the cost". It could very well turn out that fusion plants are so expensive to construct that the energy produced is more expensive than other forms of power generation.

ovi256 10y ago

>No more global warming. Au contraire, my friend. Unlimited cheap energy would bring on, in time, the next type of anthropogenic warming: the temperature of the planet being raised, not by a greenhouse effect, but by the raw power output of all those fusion reactors. Even if a good fraction of their thermal output is transformed into electricity, the electricity always finishes as decay heat, with very few exceptions. The solution for that is to move the Earth farther away from the sun, which reduces solar input. Or injection of coolants such as sulphates in the atmosphere. Even with zero solar input, there's still an upper limit on how much decay heat we can release in the atmosphere without boiling ourselves.

kentiko 10y ago
Source? Compare to how much heat we receive from the sun I doubt our activity adds much heat.
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  At the moment not really, yes. But he was speaking of the possible scenario with unlimited avaiable energy and therefore much more energy spending ... but I also don't see this as a real concern. Global Human energy output would have to increase by many numbers to make a significant impact.
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    Someone up thread posted the figures, human energy is 12 terawatts, the earth receives 172,000 terawatts a day, replacing all of energy usage with fusion and then doubling it to 24 terawatts would likely result in a cooler planet (since we'd be producing far less carbon dioxide).
literallycancer 10y ago
When energy isn't a concern, what stops you from moving the manufacturing into space?
- xienze 10y ago
  Cost...
  - mkj 10y ago
    Cost is mostly convertible to energy. (And space I guess, for things like real estate)
jasonjayr 10y ago
I imagine unlimited cheap energy would help facilitate moving us off this floating rock we call earth. Unlimited cheap energy on any plant would enable us to implement environmental controls, using that energy, so we could build habitats in hostile atmospheres.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  > I imagine unlimited cheap energy would help facilitate moving us off this floating rock we call earth. With a working small scale fusion reactor we could colonise the entire solar system, the raw materials are all out there but energy is always one of the main issues. I remember reading back in the 80's a plan for extracting metals, creating metal foam that would float and then dropping them into the ocean (some would be lost to rentry heat but it was a tiny percentage) where a drone ship would sail out and tow them in. I would love to see something like that in my lifetime.
adekok 10y ago
> the temperature of the planet being raised, not by a greenhouse effect, but by the raw power output of all those fusion reactors. Not that Wikipedia is the best source, but... World energy consumption is about 12 terawatts [1], whereas the Earth receives 172,000 terawatts in the upper atmosphere. [2] The difference is 4 orders of magnitude. i.e. The Earth receives in one day the same power as produced by humans in 10-15 years. I think we're safe. > The solution for that is to move the Earth farther away from the sun That's firmly in the realm of science fiction. The power required to move the earth would be so enormous that it could power human technology for billions of years. i.e. it would be energetically more efficient to use that power to fix the current problem, instead of doing something ridiculous like "move the Earth". --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  To complete your rebuttal to the statement "not by a greenhouse effect, but by the raw power output", it's important to compare the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. It would be easy to draw the wrong conclusion, and think that mankind cannot impact the temperature of the planet because it already gets so much energy from the sun that our actions don't matter. This is incorrect. As you say, the sun provides approximately 172,000 terawatts to the Earth, due to a solar irradiance of 1360 W/m^2 over the planet's cross sectional area of 1.27x10^11 m^2. While this is the correct value for the amount of energy received at the upper atmosphere, only some of it is actually absorbed by the Earth. Currently, approximately 30% of this energy is reflected back to space. Anthropogenic radiative forcing was estimated by the IPCC in 2011 [1] to contribute approximately 2.29 W/m^2. This is the difference in solar energy absorption caused by human activities (such as releasing CO2). Multiplied by the area of the Earth, this is 290 terawatts of energy, which is many times greater than world energy consumption. Also note that this figure is rapidly increasing - compare to 1.25 in 1980 and 0.57 in 1950 in that report, or 1.6 in the 2007 report [2]. [1]: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_..., see page 12 [2]: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm..., see page 4

FlyingAvatar 10y ago

This is an idealized view of fusion energy. Doing it on Earth in a practical manner most likely has tradeoffs, if it is reasonably possible at all in a timeframe that would make it useful. We should research multiple avenues of energy independence (including fusion, and including how to increase conservation/efficiency of use) so that we can make real progress now and not hang our hat on a single magic solution.

M_Grey 10y ago
I've found that fusion is one of those topics that's exceedingly difficult to discuss with most people. Most people I've met in the tech world know what they've read in popsci articles here and there, and a lot of science fiction. It's rare to run into someone you can sit down and talk about resonances with, the challenges neutron bombardment, why aneutronic pathways are so difficult to achieve, etc... If you know a little about fusion, it's very exciting and seems very real and very close. If you know a lot about fusion, it's exciting, but you realize that the odds of practical fusion power plants in our lifetimes are extremely low. The problem is that to get someone from one state of knowledge to the other requires their active participation, and most people see that as "pissing on their enthusiasm".
- noir_lord 10y ago
  I don't know a huge amount about fusion beyond following some of the projects and reading what they are up to. What did you make of the German (mainly) Stellarator[1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    It's one of the most inspiring bits of practical experimental science in our lifetimes I think, but I'm a big fan. That's not to say that it's putting us on the cusp of fusion reactors, but it's definitely going to help the understanding of how plasma at high temps and under strong magnetic fields acts. The best analogy I've heard is "Like trying to squeeze a balloon into a given shape with your bare hands." There is a strong tendency for constriction in one part of the plasma to cause it to flare in another region, which lowers the temperature of the plasma (bad) and can touch the reactor chamber (terrible!). The ideal would be a total understanding of just how and where to "squeeze" the plasma with magnetic fields, so that the least possible input of energy is required and the plasma would essentially stabilize itself. The problem is that the ability to model that on a computer is only just coming along, and the W7-X is a big step forward in uniting those new models with a practical experiment. Does it solve issues of breeding Tritium, diverting plasma, resisting atomic sputtering? No, but it does hopefully move forward the understanding of the underlying plasma physics.

dkural 10y ago

Those costs are born by real people, who have other needs such as education, healthcare, sanitation, nutrition etc. If you truly believe "whatever the cost", start by donating most of your salary. After all, you could live somewhere smaller, consume less stuff, not take any days off, etc. It's so important for human civilization to progress, right? Second issue: There are cheaper ways to produce no greenhouse gases than fusion energy, today. Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Geothermal, Wave, Hydro are all mostly CO2 free, just like Fusion. However, these technologies compete in the (very distorted) energy markets, have some environmental impact, social impact, and there is too low a cost to simply poisoning our air quality with cheap coal. Our grid designs are outdated, the way we regulate our utilities & their incentives also don't align. Third issue: Fusion is well understood, plasma physics, the structure of magnetic fields etc. is the real issue, as other commenters have outlined. There was a mistake in our understanding of how even our microwave oven's fields are contained via the tiny Faraday Cage around them. Even Feynman was wrong about it: https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/surprises-of-the-faraday-cage https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/surprises-of-the-farada...

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
From that article: > Q3. Somebody must design microwave oven doors based on laboratory measurements. Where are these people? They're (1) deep inside large corporations like GE, LG, Sharp, and others - they have non-disclosure agreements, keycard locks on the doors to neighboring departments, and strict firewalls on their network connections. They don't publish, which is probably a foreign concept to this Oxford professor. And (2) they are cannot afford to be this curious, they are time-constrained and budget-driven, which is also fundamentally alien to this professor's tenure-based worldview. They have to pass CE/FCC emissions regulations, and if a trial of a larger grid spacing or lower gauge says the device fails, that's the conclusion of the matter - put in the stuff that worked before. They certainly don't have a year to devote to understanding the fundamentals of Faraday cages.
- Gravityloss 10y ago
  On the other hand, people have gotten curious in the past. If I wanted to hire innovative top talent, I would expect them to have interests outside the immediate company project requirements. Actually most good ideas come from domain experts and not some business managers. Furthermore, many people just naturally like to share their ideas and discoveries to the world.

reacweb 10y ago

Solar energy is already almost unlimited. Cost of solar panels are regularly decreasing and power storage is improving. If the surface of earth becomes tiny, we can put factories on the moon (or in orbit) with this same cheap energy. Maybe the search of fusion is the cause we have never encountered aliens.

baq 10y ago
fusion + solar is what we need. solar alone requires lots of investment into energy storage, which is a very hard problem to do at scale. fusion (or cleaner fission, if that's possible - thorium maybe?) base load helps quite a bit.

mikeash 10y ago

I hope you're right, and I think you might be, but keep in mind that much the same was said about fission power in the 1950s. The classic phrase was that electricity would become "too cheap to meter." This wasn't an outrageous assumption given how cheap fuel costs were. But it turned out that running real-world nuclear plants had enough other costs to not be much, if any, improvement over other sources of power. Fusion fuel is really cheap, but that doesn't necessarily mean that fusion power will be.