4 ms·

As the article itself states: In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society i

As the article itself states: In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century."

louwrentius 5y ago
Sorry for being like this but what I like most about that remark is the joyful optimism that there will be a society to power in the first place, and secondly one that can (still) build and operate such technology. Edit: maybe I’m needlessly pessimistic but I feel societies are much more fragile than they seem. We had it unreasonably good in ‘the west’ for the last 77 years but that time span is so short in the grander scheme of things, it gives a false sense of security. In some part, due to societal changes, schisms, injustices, the increasing distrust that eats at the foundation of society, At some point, there may be nothing worth left to power with nuclear fusion. Although I start to wonder if we should keep powering a lot of things in today’s world. There is so much needless unnecessary madness going on.
- willis936 5y ago
  Why bet against society existing in 30 years? If you're right then you make money and if you're wrong then money is worthless. Replace money with "technology that sustains society".
- dylan604 5y ago
  Huh? It's only like 30 years off. They didn't say 2150 or something else further into the future. How bad do you think things are currently that 28 years from now, society will be totally shattered?
- benlumen 5y ago
  You don’t give it 28 years? In the early 2000s I was in the “fast crash” camp, too. Not anymore.
- dabeeeenster 5y ago
  Are there any studies on what the world might look like in 50 years, based on a reasonable, realistic projection of climate change, human change in behaviour etc etc? Just to be clear, I 100% believe in climate change, and do what I think is a fair amount to help (cycle as much as I can, don't take long haul flights, take train instead of short haul flights, drive EV, insulate house, don't eat much meat, Solar PV panels). BUT! I feel like humanity and the earth are way more fault-tolerant than the parent comment gives them credit for. I don't think we are going to see the total collapse of civilisation - far from it. But I would welcome any links on people/studies/groups who have theorised what might happen in a medium-case scenario?
  - unilynx 5y ago
    Don’t worry, Earth is pretty fault tolerant. It will still be here long after we’re gone
  - WanderPanda 5y ago
    Exactly this! I believe global warming can become an inconvenience but nothing totally off the scale compared to the problems we face today (and especially have faced in the past). If there is even a 1% chance of a nuclear war that would be much more devastating (even in expected value) than climate change. I actually have grown to fear the opposite: We come up with an efficient cycle to capture carbon (like the one to create starch that was all over the news some time ago) and suddenly it becomes a race to the bottom where we need international treaties so people are not sucking all the carbon from the atmosphere. I have no clue about chemistry whatsoever so I can hardly tell if this is plausible but if it is, it appears far more dangerous to me than a couple degrees in global warming.
- Simplicitas 5y ago
  Ok .. let's pack it in, and kiss our tails goodbye then .. lol
- WhompingWindows 5y ago
  It seems highly improbable we won't have society in 2050. We're currently in 2022, we've existed alongside nuclear weaponry for 75 years, I doubt the next 28 will see annihilation but I do dread the small chance (maybe 5-10%)? So other than nuclear apocalypse, I fail to see what could remove society by 2050? Climate Change's worst effects will not be seen by 2050, they'll be very bad but they won't destroy society in all places, just hamper its economy and lower societal living standards.
civilized 5y ago
2050 is coming sooner than any of us can imagine. I'm glad there are people looking out on that horizon!
- emteycz 5y ago
  Yeah! But we need to go nuclear [fission] in the mean time... I can't imagine any other way that wouldn't devastate the environment excessively at the same time (e.g. river dams are bad IMHO).
  - galvin 5y ago
    Flamanville 3 in France was started in 2007 and is due to be launched in 2022. It's the first of its generation (in France at least) so the delays and cost overruns are not unexpected. Even so, if more are to be built they will not come into service until the mid 2030's at the earliest. I don't think we can wait that long.
    - emteycz 5y ago
      Well yeah, I think we should industrialize it, make nuclear fission reactors serial. I don't think what we're doing is sufficient either.
mcv 5y ago
Even that is optimistic; they don't expect any net production of energy before 2055, and I doubt there's any guarantee that that will work, because if there was, they'd be trying that right now.
- belter 5y ago
  This was a test to validate what will happen with ITER. ITER will really only start, by their own planning, that has been consistently delayed, only in 2035. They will start in 2025, then will stop for a few years then will really only start in 2035. ITER is a scientific experiment not the first commercial prototype. Assuming it succeeds you are looking at a procurement and construction process of 20 years for the first commercial prototype by 2060! At best, you will start constructing commercial power in 2060 and making in impact in 2080. If its even commercially feasible and not an incredibly expensive toy. Fantastic achievements from the SPARC (MIT) project are not likely to impact this. Conclusion: Forget about Fusion as a solution to help with the current climate change emergency. The planet will be here, but Gaia will clean us up as parasitic extras, if we don't do something in the next 5 to 10 years. And no, you wont be allowed in the Belt.
  - mcv 5y ago
    Maybe put more effort into using that big fusion reactor in the sky. That's a fusion reactor that already works, and solar panels have been making amazing advancements over the past two decades, so that's a much quicker solution at this point. Fusion research is still very interesting, but honestly it's starting to feel more like an expensive hobby by now. It certainly shouldn't take precedence over more attainable and faster solutions.

As the article itself states: In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century."

louwrentius 5y ago

Sorry for being like this but what I like most about that remark is the joyful optimism that there will be a society to power in the first place, and secondly one that can (still) build and operate such technology. Edit: maybe I’m needlessly pessimistic but I feel societies are much more fragile than they seem. We had it unreasonably good in ‘the west’ for the last 77 years but that time span is so short in the grander scheme of things, it gives a false sense of security. In some part, due to societal changes, schisms, injustices, the increasing distrust that eats at the foundation of society, At some point, there may be nothing worth left to power with nuclear fusion. Although I start to wonder if we should keep powering a lot of things in today’s world. There is so much needless unnecessary madness going on.

willis936 5y ago
Why bet against society existing in 30 years? If you're right then you make money and if you're wrong then money is worthless. Replace money with "technology that sustains society".
dylan604 5y ago
Huh? It's only like 30 years off. They didn't say 2150 or something else further into the future. How bad do you think things are currently that 28 years from now, society will be totally shattered?
benlumen 5y ago
You don’t give it 28 years? In the early 2000s I was in the “fast crash” camp, too. Not anymore.
dabeeeenster 5y ago
Are there any studies on what the world might look like in 50 years, based on a reasonable, realistic projection of climate change, human change in behaviour etc etc? Just to be clear, I 100% believe in climate change, and do what I think is a fair amount to help (cycle as much as I can, don't take long haul flights, take train instead of short haul flights, drive EV, insulate house, don't eat much meat, Solar PV panels). BUT! I feel like humanity and the earth are way more fault-tolerant than the parent comment gives them credit for. I don't think we are going to see the total collapse of civilisation - far from it. But I would welcome any links on people/studies/groups who have theorised what might happen in a medium-case scenario?
- unilynx 5y ago
  Don’t worry, Earth is pretty fault tolerant. It will still be here long after we’re gone
- WanderPanda 5y ago
  Exactly this! I believe global warming can become an inconvenience but nothing totally off the scale compared to the problems we face today (and especially have faced in the past). If there is even a 1% chance of a nuclear war that would be much more devastating (even in expected value) than climate change. I actually have grown to fear the opposite: We come up with an efficient cycle to capture carbon (like the one to create starch that was all over the news some time ago) and suddenly it becomes a race to the bottom where we need international treaties so people are not sucking all the carbon from the atmosphere. I have no clue about chemistry whatsoever so I can hardly tell if this is plausible but if it is, it appears far more dangerous to me than a couple degrees in global warming.
Simplicitas 5y ago
Ok .. let's pack it in, and kiss our tails goodbye then .. lol
WhompingWindows 5y ago
It seems highly improbable we won't have society in 2050. We're currently in 2022, we've existed alongside nuclear weaponry for 75 years, I doubt the next 28 will see annihilation but I do dread the small chance (maybe 5-10%)? So other than nuclear apocalypse, I fail to see what could remove society by 2050? Climate Change's worst effects will not be seen by 2050, they'll be very bad but they won't destroy society in all places, just hamper its economy and lower societal living standards.

civilized 5y ago

2050 is coming sooner than any of us can imagine. I'm glad there are people looking out on that horizon!

emteycz 5y ago
Yeah! But we need to go nuclear [fission] in the mean time... I can't imagine any other way that wouldn't devastate the environment excessively at the same time (e.g. river dams are bad IMHO).
- galvin 5y ago
  Flamanville 3 in France was started in 2007 and is due to be launched in 2022. It's the first of its generation (in France at least) so the delays and cost overruns are not unexpected. Even so, if more are to be built they will not come into service until the mid 2030's at the earliest. I don't think we can wait that long.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    Well yeah, I think we should industrialize it, make nuclear fission reactors serial. I don't think what we're doing is sufficient either.

mcv 5y ago

Even that is optimistic; they don't expect any net production of energy before 2055, and I doubt there's any guarantee that that will work, because if there was, they'd be trying that right now.

belter 5y ago
This was a test to validate what will happen with ITER. ITER will really only start, by their own planning, that has been consistently delayed, only in 2035. They will start in 2025, then will stop for a few years then will really only start in 2035. ITER is a scientific experiment not the first commercial prototype. Assuming it succeeds you are looking at a procurement and construction process of 20 years for the first commercial prototype by 2060! At best, you will start constructing commercial power in 2060 and making in impact in 2080. If its even commercially feasible and not an incredibly expensive toy. Fantastic achievements from the SPARC (MIT) project are not likely to impact this. Conclusion: Forget about Fusion as a solution to help with the current climate change emergency. The planet will be here, but Gaia will clean us up as parasitic extras, if we don't do something in the next 5 to 10 years. And no, you wont be allowed in the Belt.
- mcv 5y ago
  Maybe put more effort into using that big fusion reactor in the sky. That's a fusion reactor that already works, and solar panels have been making amazing advancements over the past two decades, so that's a much quicker solution at this point. Fusion research is still very interesting, but honestly it's starting to feel more like an expensive hobby by now. It certainly shouldn't take precedence over more attainable and faster solutions.