4 ms·

Bill forgot the only thing that can truly be a game changer: Nuclear Fusion. In the long run, this is the only solution that can provide the amount of energy re

Bill forgot the only thing that can truly be a game changer: Nuclear Fusion. In the long run, this is the only solution that can provide the amount of energy required by our modern society.

Yajirobe 7y ago
> our modern society You probably mean future society, as this technology is not really viable yet (in its current form).
Tepix 7y ago
Citation needed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
olau 7y ago
I don't think so, not for the foreseeable future at least - fusion has to be cheaper than fission to be interesting, and fission is probably too expensive at the moment already.
votepaunchy 7y ago
Fusion is also the only energy source which will allow us to reverse the worst effects of climate change (melted ice caps in particular).
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  Very unlikely that fusion will have any impact on climate change on the timescale which is necessary. The cuts need to be made over the next 20 years, even if we had the technology, it would take a lot longer to scale up.
- mcv 7y ago
  Not sure why only fusion power would allow that. Solar power is making use of energy that's already heating our planet without us making use of it. Turning solar radiation into electricity instead of heat, makes more efficient use of energy we already have without having to generate more of it from different sources, like fusion. And the amount of sunlight we receive is enormous. If we could make use of a significant faction of that, it would provide more energy than we ever need. There's no reason that can't do anything that fusion power will ever be able to do on Earth. The only real advantage fusion power has over solar is that it's independent of the sun and can be used in deep space. Well, once it finally works.
anoncake 7y ago
It's pointless to debate whether we should use a technology we don't have yet.
- ddxxdd 7y ago
  I'm currently reading Griffith's Classical Electrodynamics and Jackson's Electrodynamics, coupled with lecture notes on plasma physics, in order to take a crack at the problem of nuclear fusion. Many other people are doing similar things, because it may possibly be the most important invention that anyone will ever create.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Oh, I don't mean that we should ignore fusion. We should invest in its research, probably as much as is helpful to speed it up. But when considering how to reduce greenhouse emissions right now, fusion is not an option.
Brometheus 7y ago
Ja, called sun. Already an off-earth installation available. Transfer of energy via radiation. Has just to be collected and transformed to electricity.
strainer 7y ago
Nuclear fusion and fission are both exceptionally complicated ways to boil water, and even if given an ideal water boiler, turbine and cooling plants still need to be built for them and situated somewhere that about 3 times as much heat energy can be released into the local environment. This is known as thermal pollution: "ultimately, when heat waves are extreme enough, power plants will need to draw down their power output."[1] Here [2] is a study which shows anthropogenic heat emissions from energy consumption are a pressure on global climate. If we put out another 200%+ of whatever energy we consume, in the form of thermoelectric cooling (heat) then quite surely that will amount to a bigger problem. Also, "Thermoelectric power use has a significant impact on water resources and the power sector is highly dependent on these water resources; the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated on a national level that 41% OF ALL FRESHWATER WITHDRAWALS in the United States in 2005 were for thermoelectric power operations, primarily for cooling needs (Kenny et al 2009)."[3] I believe the real game changers are plainly solar and wind. These have shown the most rapid improvements from investment. On similar timescale to developing fission or secure nuclear, floating oceanic wind and solar combined with hydrogen generation rigs (and even ocean plastic filtering) are possible... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/thermal-pollution https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci... [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2092-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2092-z [3] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045802/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045...
- petre 7y ago
  > 3 times as much heat energy can be released into the local environment Or used for desalination, hydrogen, syngas, ammonia, methanol, ethanol production [1] etc. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/industry/nuclear-process-heat-for-industry.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-n... Also, your estimation is incorrect. The thremal rated power of a nuclear reactor doesn't mean it releases 3x as much heat in the environment. At least 1/3 of the thermal energy is converted to electricity, and part of what remains is fed into a new cycle. The overall efficiency of a nuclear reacor is 33-37%. Gen IV reactor projected efficiencies are above 45%.
mcv 7y ago
No, solar is fine. Well, that's also fusion power in a way, but driven by an existing fusion reactor that doesn't cost us any energy. And for the next couple of centuries or millennia, it will continue to produce more energy that we'll ever need. Nuclear fusion would certainly be nice if it could be made to work, but I've lost my enthusiasm about that a long time ago. Solar is giving us far better returns.

Bill forgot the only thing that can truly be a game changer: Nuclear Fusion. In the long run, this is the only solution that can provide the amount of energy required by our modern society.

Yajirobe 7y ago

> our modern society You probably mean future society, as this technology is not really viable yet (in its current form).

Tepix 7y ago

Citation needed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

olau 7y ago

I don't think so, not for the foreseeable future at least - fusion has to be cheaper than fission to be interesting, and fission is probably too expensive at the moment already.

votepaunchy 7y ago

Fusion is also the only energy source which will allow us to reverse the worst effects of climate change (melted ice caps in particular).

Brakenshire 7y ago
Very unlikely that fusion will have any impact on climate change on the timescale which is necessary. The cuts need to be made over the next 20 years, even if we had the technology, it would take a lot longer to scale up.
mcv 7y ago
Not sure why only fusion power would allow that. Solar power is making use of energy that's already heating our planet without us making use of it. Turning solar radiation into electricity instead of heat, makes more efficient use of energy we already have without having to generate more of it from different sources, like fusion. And the amount of sunlight we receive is enormous. If we could make use of a significant faction of that, it would provide more energy than we ever need. There's no reason that can't do anything that fusion power will ever be able to do on Earth. The only real advantage fusion power has over solar is that it's independent of the sun and can be used in deep space. Well, once it finally works.

anoncake 7y ago

It's pointless to debate whether we should use a technology we don't have yet.

ddxxdd 7y ago
I'm currently reading Griffith's Classical Electrodynamics and Jackson's Electrodynamics, coupled with lecture notes on plasma physics, in order to take a crack at the problem of nuclear fusion. Many other people are doing similar things, because it may possibly be the most important invention that anyone will ever create.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Oh, I don't mean that we should ignore fusion. We should invest in its research, probably as much as is helpful to speed it up. But when considering how to reduce greenhouse emissions right now, fusion is not an option.

Brometheus 7y ago

Ja, called sun. Already an off-earth installation available. Transfer of energy via radiation. Has just to be collected and transformed to electricity.

strainer 7y ago

Nuclear fusion and fission are both exceptionally complicated ways to boil water, and even if given an ideal water boiler, turbine and cooling plants still need to be built for them and situated somewhere that about 3 times as much heat energy can be released into the local environment. This is known as thermal pollution: "ultimately, when heat waves are extreme enough, power plants will need to draw down their power output."[1] Here [2] is a study which shows anthropogenic heat emissions from energy consumption are a pressure on global climate. If we put out another 200%+ of whatever energy we consume, in the form of thermoelectric cooling (heat) then quite surely that will amount to a bigger problem. Also, "Thermoelectric power use has a significant impact on water resources and the power sector is highly dependent on these water resources; the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated on a national level that 41% OF ALL FRESHWATER WITHDRAWALS in the United States in 2005 were for thermoelectric power operations, primarily for cooling needs (Kenny et al 2009)."[3] I believe the real game changers are plainly solar and wind. These have shown the most rapid improvements from investment. On similar timescale to developing fission or secure nuclear, floating oceanic wind and solar combined with hydrogen generation rigs (and even ocean plastic filtering) are possible... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/thermal-pollution https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci... [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2092-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2092-z [3] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045802/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045...

petre 7y ago
> 3 times as much heat energy can be released into the local environment Or used for desalination, hydrogen, syngas, ammonia, methanol, ethanol production [1] etc. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/industry/nuclear-process-heat-for-industry.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-n... Also, your estimation is incorrect. The thremal rated power of a nuclear reactor doesn't mean it releases 3x as much heat in the environment. At least 1/3 of the thermal energy is converted to electricity, and part of what remains is fed into a new cycle. The overall efficiency of a nuclear reacor is 33-37%. Gen IV reactor projected efficiencies are above 45%.

mcv 7y ago

No, solar is fine. Well, that's also fusion power in a way, but driven by an existing fusion reactor that doesn't cost us any energy. And for the next couple of centuries or millennia, it will continue to produce more energy that we'll ever need. Nuclear fusion would certainly be nice if it could be made to work, but I've lost my enthusiasm about that a long time ago. Solar is giving us far better returns.