Thade780@lemmy.world
on 01 Dec 2023 17:11
nextcollapse
Funding is almost nothing compared to other endeavors.
Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
on 01 Dec 2023 17:12
nextcollapse
Progress is always incremental, except in hindsight
dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
on 01 Dec 2023 17:23
nextcollapse
I’m not optimistic about it as a solution to climate change nor any current day energy needs primarily because it feeds right into the techbro/capitalist lame kink that if we just had wayyyyy more power it would solve everything. Most of the problems we are experiencing today stem from having too much power, too much capability to extract resources violently from the earth, too much power from oil to the point that we built a batshit insane transportation system based around cars (even in the center of the worlds largest and densest cities) and most importantly too much power in the hands of energy and fossil fuel companies.
Fusion would solve 0% of any of those problems, and the more people fixate on it as the kind of solution we should be holding out for to save us, the more dangerous it is.
However, the science is cool, it is definitely worth investing in and studying because one day it could be huge. I just think if we discovered an energy source that provided us with limitless power today, right now, it would actually be the precise thing that would doom the human race into not fixing any of the problems that truly threaten our survival as a species nor would it save the planet from us.
dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
on 01 Dec 2023 22:17
collapse
There is zero evidence it wouldn’t just lead to even more extraction or destruction of the environment than is already happening. There is also little evidence that the power would actually get into the hands of the power and third world and it wouldn’t just be the US, Europe and the most powerful nations in Asia living off cheap power while keeping it from the rest of the planet.
Doomsider@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 01:29
collapse
Now that we have unlimited power we can finally extract all that gold!
WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
on 01 Dec 2023 17:24
nextcollapse
The ITER was basically supposed to have been built starting in the 80s from my understanding... Until cheap fossil fuels dried up all interest in funding fusion research. When it takes 40 years to fund a single project via international collaboration, 50 years is a short timescale.
Even with renewed recent interest, fusion still has less than half the funding it did during the energy crisis. Of course the predictions from that era were optimistic given they were no longer able to do experiments like these when they expected them to proliferate.
The biggest delays for ITER were all political in deciding where it would be built and who would contribute what. Yes, there’s been some technical delays since then, but compared to other projects of this scale it has actually gone fairly well.
The DEMO units to follow ITER should be able to be built by individual nations. Those should go a lot faster and hence cheaper. The whole point of structuring ITER the way they did was to give all the contributing countries experience in every critical system. That’s very inefficient for this particular project, but should make follow up projects a lot more feasible.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
on 01 Dec 2023 20:09
nextcollapse
Oh, I believe working fusion reactors are in the very near future, without a doubt. However, I also believe it can’t possibly work out to be as transformative as people seem to expect. In the end, we’ll be saying “congratulations, you’ve developed the most expensive form of energy production yet! It’s nearly useless!”
And worst of all, we don’t have enough beryllium in the world to produce the fusion breeding blankets needed to make more than a few fusion power plants. And even if we could make all those shiny beryllium blankets, we then have another problem… one of the side effect of using a heavy metal to absorb high energy particles and turn then into heat, is that over time the entire blanket becomes highly radioactive. Now we’re back to the same problems we have with fission, but at a much higher cost.
Will fusion work? Absolutely, and it will be extremely useful for long duration space missions, or antarctic bases. But beyond edge cases, the tokamak will probably never make sense.
I’m curious to see if other solutions like helion’s reactor will work, that certainly seems a lot more sustainable.
Yeah I mean at the end of the day the goal is still “make water hot to turn spinny thing with steam”.
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
on 02 Dec 2023 02:08
nextcollapse
There is a helium fusion reaction that produces electrons. I’m not sure how feasible the process is for electricity generation, though.
Socsa@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Dec 2023 02:36
collapse
Helion says they will generate power directly from the electromagnetic field of the amplified plasma pulses (and then more from waste heat). It may work to some degree, but their proposed tritium reaction will produce enough neutrons to sterilize a couple cubic kms and render the entire assembly too radioactive to maintain by humans.
paraphrand@lemmy.world
on 01 Dec 2023 23:54
nextcollapse
We’ve been working on AI for 50 years too.
I wouldn’t frame it like that.
willis936@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 02:05
collapse
We have not spent a hundred billion dollars on fusion energy research collectively as a planet in the past 70 years of working on it. We do spent 10x that every year for the US defense budget.
bassomitron@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 03:12
collapse
Heh, in 2010 the ITER project had already been funded with $16 billion euros, which would be $22 billion euros adjusting for inflation. Kind of funny that they were hoping to have it producing 500 megawatts of thermal energy by 2020… However, the funding for ITER itself is kind of a hot mess of debate, with differing opinions on how much has truly been spent on it thus far and how much more it will need: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITERworld-nuclear-news.org/…/Investment-in-fusion-has…
I’m not sure if that’s saying $6.21b USD just for 2023 for private funding efforts or if that’s the cumulative thus far in general.
I’d say it’s safe to say if you tally it all up–public and private investments–it’s around a hundred billion or more. But yes, the US does dump an awful lot of money into the military industrial complex instead of towards more universally beneficial endeavors; though, that wasn’t really what was being discussed.
EpicFailGuy@kbin.social
on 01 Dec 2023 18:01
nextcollapse
I’m as much a nuclear skeptic as anyone, but while fusion solves neither the time or budget problems of fission, it does solve the meltdown and waste problems.
ryrybang@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 05:50
nextcollapse
It improves the waste issue, doesn’t really solve it. A dirty, little-discussed secret about fusion power.
If we had a bunch of fusion plants go live, we’d soon have tons and tons of radioactive containment wall material to bury/store somewhere. Including all the special handling requirements that you need with fuel rod waste. I think fusion plants would actually create more waste than a comparable fission plant, at least as far as tons of radioactive material.
The benefit is that waste would be lighter isotopes and degrade faster. So you have more physical material to worry about but only need to worry about it for ~100 years, not thousands.
CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 17:43
nextcollapse
Still far better than thousands of tons of toxic and radioactive fly ash from coal.
The decommissioning plans for ITER more or less literally say “let stand there as-is for 100 years, then demolish as usual”. Fisson plants, which don’t use less concrete, need to be taken apart small section by small section, each single piece analysed for radiation and sorted into long- or short-term storage. Fusion plants are only marginally more of a headache safety-wise than the radiology department of a hospital and you don’t generally hear people complaining about those.
superminerJG@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 15:34
nextcollapse
The reaction used in fusion generators is:
[2]H + [3]H -> [4]He + n
Since tritium is usually produced from lithium in situ, you add:
[6]Li + n -> [3]H + [4]He.
The only radioactive thing here is tritium, and it’s mostly confined to the reactor. Also, tritium isn’t nearly as bad as fission waste.
perviouslyiner@lemm.ee
on 02 Dec 2023 16:34
collapse
So does this also mean that glow-in-the-dark watches (the non electronic type) get cheaper?
superminerJG@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 19:20
collapse
I mean, if you could extract any tritium from the reactor cavity, but it’s probably going to get burned up instantly.
The reactions I showed add up to this overall reaction. Neutrons simply serve as a catalyst.
[2]H + [6]Li -> 2 [4]He
On the bright side, fusion reactors produce helium as a byproduct, which might make party balloons cheaper.
With reprocessing, which we already do, and new
Gen IV power plants, there’s enough energy to last us thousand of years with currently known resources. And that’s before we start scooping it out of the water.
Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
on 04 Dec 2023 11:10
collapse
That’s assuming a lot of ifs resolve our way, and without power needs increasing. It’s more sustainable than coal/gas/oil for sure, but with current energy development needs it’s barely long term (IIRC about 60-140 years)
Also, on centuries timescale, we will need to find more fissiles in space. And according to our current understanding of the universe, they should be quite rare, especially compared to hydrogen.
Basically, figuring out fusion power would solve our needs for the first level on the Kardashev scale, and has the potential to be portable fuel for the rest of the lifespan of the universe.
My aim is not to stop research on fusion - just making the point that we know how to do nuclear and it seems to me we are letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
on 04 Dec 2023 12:17
collapse
Oh, we need both for sure, and renewables as well.
Then we are in remarkable agreement. Nuclear, fusion and TONNES of renewables. The quicker, the better.
onlinepersona@programming.dev
on 01 Dec 2023 19:35
nextcollapse
After what the USAians achieved with a net positive output, hopefully they can match and surpass that. Fusion is one of the few technologies that can get us to 1 on Kardashev scale.
MaxVoltage@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 00:45
nextcollapse
Ok but what if coal powered space craft?
Doomsider@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 01:26
nextcollapse
-Musk, “Get your shovels ready lads, we are going to Mars!”
drbluefall@toast.ooo
on 02 Dec 2023 01:35
nextcollapse
Get marketing to convince the rich folk it is an “activated charcoal” infused air
Cihta@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 06:09
nextcollapse
But coal workers are a bedrock of American ideals! We can’t take their jobs!
Is a /s needed? I don’t know anymore. Do people really enjoy being coal miners and want their children to follow that wonderful career? I can get a yes to that question but only from people who have no idea what that entails.
KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz
on 02 Dec 2023 11:10
nextcollapse
Too low fuel density to work id assume, and most engine designs expect a liquid fuel
onlinepersona@programming.dev
on 02 Dec 2023 15:30
collapse
The method they used is absolutely unsuited for power generation, they’re doing weapons research. Two things:
Sure, more energy came out than hit the target but the amount of power wasted generating the laser light is right-out astronomical. People also gripe about other experiments not including those external (to the reaction) factors but then they’re also generally magnitudes lower.
The targets are very very hard to produce, and you only get to shoot at them once.
MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 01:24
nextcollapse
If this how we get Godzilla?
rigatti@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 05:12
nextcollapse
No. When this how we get Godzilla.
MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 18:27
collapse
AnarchistsForDemocracy@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 2023 15:31
collapse
No we get Gozilla when we mine for underwater Tritium deposits using small nukes.
ieightpi@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 18:41
nextcollapse
I remember hearing when it was announced last that fusion was achieved, scientists were skeptical that we had finally achieved this and we wouldn’t be actually putting it to use for decades to come.
But here we are. Yes it’s experimental but it’s working amd producing energy. I’m just surprised we’re here already, even if it’s only a proof of concept at this point
First@programming.dev
on 03 Dec 2023 03:34
collapse
IAEA’s estimate is that Nuclear fusion, if successfully researched and demonstrated at full capacity within 2036 at ITER (which is already lagging behind schedule) will result in commercial availability in 2050. So yes, we are still decades away from putting it to use.
Fusion is so dump. Were at least a couple decades away from brake even in the fusion reaction, but still people believe it will help solve the climate crisis.
Atm we put about 10 times nore energy into the whole system than we get out. And it generates nuclear waste because the wall materials absorb neutrons and get radioactive.
And so many other unsolved problems… this technology is a nice research peoject, but none of us will ever see a commercial reactor in action, because it is so far away, if even possible.
aphonefriend@lemmy.world
on 02 Dec 2023 18:50
nextcollapse
So what? People should stop trying for a better tomorrow because today sucks?
faintwhenfree@lemmus.org
on 03 Dec 2023 01:40
nextcollapse
They are, and they are good solution but they are not good all and end all solutions, both wind and solar cannot meet baseload and when you start talking about battery storage as solution, scaling it up requires more metal mining than will ever be sustainable, so pursuit of fusion, pursuit of tidal energy, pursuit of better nuclear, pursuit of better geothermal are viable exploration options as we need baseload generation substitute.
AnarchistsForDemocracy@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 2023 15:37
collapse
You do not need batteries to store potential energy. You can pump water up a hill into a reservoir and then harvest the energy when you need it using hydroelectric energy.
faintwhenfree@lemmus.org
on 03 Dec 2023 16:04
collapse
Dams are a whole another story ecologically but even leaving that aside,
we are talking 200-300GW capacity currently in the world for PHES, even if you construct damns on every possible lakes, estimates are around 1000GW that world can build. World currently consumes close to 8000GW on baseload. We won’t even cover 15% of baseload with PHES.
If you’re trolling with your storage as magical solution keep trolling.
AnarchistsForDemocracy@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 2023 16:10
collapse
Not sure if you are being willfully obtuse, I’m going to assume good faith.
A dam is a hydroelectric plant. you need a river a ravine and a lot more conditions to be met.
and technically speaking potential energy could be stored by lifting bolders and then harvest the released energy when they are allowed to come down. There are many ways to device systems like such. You could even go underground and use drilled wells with two reservoirs at different levels for this.
You are mistaken to dismiss this outright without at least looking at the wiki i linked.
faintwhenfree@lemmus.org
on 03 Dec 2023 16:57
collapse
I’m not saying storing potential energy doesn’t work, it works and even though we lose some energy in conversion it’s still better than chemical batteries. No question there, my point is simple, we don’t have enough infrastructure to cover the world’s baseload demand by releasing stored energy. We need something that can produce baseload power 24x7.
Geothermal and tidal(debatable but close enough) are the only viable renewable energy sources we have that run 24x7 and they’re not enough to cover the world’s energy demands. Adding PSEH doesn’t cover it either. We need something more and nuclear (fission or fusion) are the only other options that don’t emit CO2.
AnarchistsForDemocracy@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 2023 18:01
collapse
we don’t have enough infrastructure to cover the world’s baseload demand by releasing stored energy.
Here is where my disagreement lies. There is multitude of ways to store potential energy. I understand your point that only 16% of the world’s energy usage can be covered by natural sites that lend themselves to this. There are other ways to do this though, for one there is old coal mines that may be repurposed for this. There is also already existing systems like the sewers that can be outfitted to also allow stormdrains to double for this after repurposing them. There is many more way to store potential energy physically than just pumping water up a hill or between different levels of underground ravines…
You could use electrolysis, I am not sure how feasible that would be, however the assertion that this simply won’t work I do not buy. You could simply wind a large number of springs or other such maybe natural systems to create the same effect.
All of our energy comes either from the sun or from other stars that ceased. The amount of energy that hits the earth in the form of sunlight is massive and is imho the only presently available energy source we could use today on a large scale. This of course would require a massive engineering effort, but to outright dismiss this sounds like trolling to me.
elbarto777@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 2023 04:02
collapse
Imagine making this kind of comment in a technology community.
AnarchistsForDemocracy@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 2023 15:32
collapse
Imagine not explaining your position instead only using derision.
El Barto if you are who you say you are, you will explain to us WHY the aforementioned is worthy of derision.
elbarto777@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 2023 19:42
collapse
Because a technology community is usually filled with people interested in advancements in technology.
So, say, you’re interested in space telescopes, come to this community to read about the latest advancements and you’re hit with someone saying “pffftt, stick to ground telescopes, people!”
(I didn’t downvote you, by the way.)
AnarchistsForDemocracy@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 2023 19:57
collapse
Max Planck plans on building an actual power plant in the 2030s. A stellerator (just like Wendelstein 7X) which, unlike Tokmaks, don’t have scaling issues. They will still need to nail down tritium breeding (ITER not getting anywhere, it should have provided that data) and there’s also some headaches about divertor panels which get (deliberately) hit by plasma and wear down quite a bit quicker than they would’ve hoped but a failure there would only get into the way of being price-competetive with other energy sources (lots of spare parts needed), not achieving net power output. Including cooling and everything, not just plasma heating.
As to it solving the climate crisis: Certainly not on its own, but possibly on the tail end of the transition. We don’t only need to fix the climate issue but also switch to a circular economy and having plenty of cheap energy makes that way, way easier to achieve.
themurphy@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 2023 15:40
collapse
Society grows strong when men plant trees in which shadow they will never sit.
threaded - newest
.
Funding is almost nothing compared to other endeavors.
Progress is always incremental, except in hindsight
I’m not optimistic about it as a solution to climate change nor any current day energy needs primarily because it feeds right into the techbro/capitalist lame kink that if we just had wayyyyy more power it would solve everything. Most of the problems we are experiencing today stem from having too much power, too much capability to extract resources violently from the earth, too much power from oil to the point that we built a batshit insane transportation system based around cars (even in the center of the worlds largest and densest cities) and most importantly too much power in the hands of energy and fossil fuel companies.
Fusion would solve 0% of any of those problems, and the more people fixate on it as the kind of solution we should be holding out for to save us, the more dangerous it is.
However, the science is cool, it is definitely worth investing in and studying because one day it could be huge. I just think if we discovered an energy source that provided us with limitless power today, right now, it would actually be the precise thing that would doom the human race into not fixing any of the problems that truly threaten our survival as a species nor would it save the planet from us.
.
There is zero evidence it wouldn’t just lead to even more extraction or destruction of the environment than is already happening. There is also little evidence that the power would actually get into the hands of the power and third world and it wouldn’t just be the US, Europe and the most powerful nations in Asia living off cheap power while keeping it from the rest of the planet.
The problem isn’t technology here.
.
Now that we have unlimited power we can finally extract all that gold!
The ITER was basically supposed to have been built starting in the 80s from my understanding... Until cheap fossil fuels dried up all interest in funding fusion research. When it takes 40 years to fund a single project via international collaboration, 50 years is a short timescale.
Even with renewed recent interest, fusion still has less than half the funding it did during the energy crisis. Of course the predictions from that era were optimistic given they were no longer able to do experiments like these when they expected them to proliferate.
The biggest delays for ITER were all political in deciding where it would be built and who would contribute what. Yes, there’s been some technical delays since then, but compared to other projects of this scale it has actually gone fairly well.
The DEMO units to follow ITER should be able to be built by individual nations. Those should go a lot faster and hence cheaper. The whole point of structuring ITER the way they did was to give all the contributing countries experience in every critical system. That’s very inefficient for this particular project, but should make follow up projects a lot more feasible.
Oh, I believe working fusion reactors are in the very near future, without a doubt. However, I also believe it can’t possibly work out to be as transformative as people seem to expect. In the end, we’ll be saying “congratulations, you’ve developed the most expensive form of energy production yet! It’s nearly useless!”
And worst of all, we don’t have enough beryllium in the world to produce the fusion breeding blankets needed to make more than a few fusion power plants. And even if we could make all those shiny beryllium blankets, we then have another problem… one of the side effect of using a heavy metal to absorb high energy particles and turn then into heat, is that over time the entire blanket becomes highly radioactive. Now we’re back to the same problems we have with fission, but at a much higher cost.
Will fusion work? Absolutely, and it will be extremely useful for long duration space missions, or antarctic bases. But beyond edge cases, the tokamak will probably never make sense.
I’m curious to see if other solutions like helion’s reactor will work, that certainly seems a lot more sustainable.
Yeah I mean at the end of the day the goal is still “make water hot to turn spinny thing with steam”.
There is a helium fusion reaction that produces electrons. I’m not sure how feasible the process is for electricity generation, though.
Helion says they will generate power directly from the electromagnetic field of the amplified plasma pulses (and then more from waste heat). It may work to some degree, but their proposed tritium reaction will produce enough neutrons to sterilize a couple cubic kms and render the entire assembly too radioactive to maintain by humans.
.
We’ve been working on AI for 50 years too.
I wouldn’t frame it like that.
We have not spent a hundred billion dollars on fusion energy research collectively as a planet in the past 70 years of working on it. We do spent 10x that every year for the US defense budget.
large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/margraf1/
That’s just the US government’s contributions. Harder to find totals for private investments and the historical contributions from all countries.
reuters.com/…/us-eu-energy-iter-idUKTRE6581JB2010…
Heh, in 2010 the ITER project had already been funded with $16 billion euros, which would be $22 billion euros adjusting for inflation. Kind of funny that they were hoping to have it producing 500 megawatts of thermal energy by 2020… However, the funding for ITER itself is kind of a hot mess of debate, with differing opinions on how much has truly been spent on it thus far and how much more it will need: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER world-nuclear-news.org/…/Investment-in-fusion-has…
I’m not sure if that’s saying $6.21b USD just for 2023 for private funding efforts or if that’s the cumulative thus far in general.
I’d say it’s safe to say if you tally it all up–public and private investments–it’s around a hundred billion or more. But yes, the US does dump an awful lot of money into the military industrial complex instead of towards more universally beneficial endeavors; though, that wasn’t really what was being discussed.
@throws_lemy
fukoshima 2 electric bugaloo
I’m as much a nuclear skeptic as anyone, but while fusion solves neither the time or budget problems of fission, it does solve the meltdown and waste problems.
It improves the waste issue, doesn’t really solve it. A dirty, little-discussed secret about fusion power.
If we had a bunch of fusion plants go live, we’d soon have tons and tons of radioactive containment wall material to bury/store somewhere. Including all the special handling requirements that you need with fuel rod waste. I think fusion plants would actually create more waste than a comparable fission plant, at least as far as tons of radioactive material.
The benefit is that waste would be lighter isotopes and degrade faster. So you have more physical material to worry about but only need to worry about it for ~100 years, not thousands.
Still far better than thousands of tons of toxic and radioactive fly ash from coal.
The decommissioning plans for ITER more or less literally say “let stand there as-is for 100 years, then demolish as usual”. Fisson plants, which don’t use less concrete, need to be taken apart small section by small section, each single piece analysed for radiation and sorted into long- or short-term storage. Fusion plants are only marginally more of a headache safety-wise than the radiology department of a hospital and you don’t generally hear people complaining about those.
The reaction used in fusion generators is:
[2]H + [3]H -> [4]He + n
Since tritium is usually produced from lithium in situ, you add:
[6]Li + n -> [3]H + [4]He.
The only radioactive thing here is tritium, and it’s mostly confined to the reactor. Also, tritium isn’t nearly as bad as fission waste.
So does this also mean that glow-in-the-dark watches (the non electronic type) get cheaper?
I mean, if you could extract any tritium from the reactor cavity, but it’s probably going to get burned up instantly.
The reactions I showed add up to this overall reaction. Neutrons simply serve as a catalyst.
[2]H + [6]Li -> 2 [4]He
On the bright side, fusion reactors produce helium as a byproduct, which might make party balloons cheaper.
So does 4 other fission power plants we can imagine. Now sure why we’re so Darwindamned fixated on fusion - I suspect it’s just the name.
Fissionable isotopes are yet another nonrenewable fuel.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
With reprocessing, which we already do, and new Gen IV power plants, there’s enough energy to last us thousand of years with currently known resources. And that’s before we start scooping it out of the water.
That’s assuming a lot of ifs resolve our way, and without power needs increasing. It’s more sustainable than coal/gas/oil for sure, but with current energy development needs it’s barely long term (IIRC about 60-140 years)
Also, on centuries timescale, we will need to find more fissiles in space. And according to our current understanding of the universe, they should be quite rare, especially compared to hydrogen.
Basically, figuring out fusion power would solve our needs for the first level on the Kardashev scale, and has the potential to be portable fuel for the rest of the lifespan of the universe.
My aim is not to stop research on fusion - just making the point that we know how to do nuclear and it seems to me we are letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Oh, we need both for sure, and renewables as well.
Then we are in remarkable agreement. Nuclear, fusion and TONNES of renewables. The quicker, the better.
After what the USAians achieved with a net positive output, hopefully they can match and surpass that. Fusion is one of the few technologies that can get us to 1 on Kardashev scale.
Ok but what if coal powered space craft?
-Musk, “Get your shovels ready lads, we are going to Mars!”
I’d rather not suffocate lol
Get marketing to convince the rich folk it is an “activated charcoal” infused air
But coal workers are a bedrock of American ideals! We can’t take their jobs!
Is a /s needed? I don’t know anymore. Do people really enjoy being coal miners and want their children to follow that wonderful career? I can get a yes to that question but only from people who have no idea what that entails.
Too low fuel density to work id assume, and most engine designs expect a liquid fuel
Let’s pollute space! We can do it 💪
esa.int/…/Debris_objects_in_low-Earth_orbit_LEO
Way ahead of you
The level of laziness here is inspiring lmao. I’m going to use this from now on
What Kardashians have to do with it?
Gonna assume that’s sarcastic
I assume it’s a joke. If it’s a good one is up for debate.
The method they used is absolutely unsuited for power generation, they’re doing weapons research. Two things:
If this how we get Godzilla?
No. When this how we get Godzilla.
But. Godzilla then how he got?
am I having a fucking stroke
No we get Gozilla when we mine for underwater Tritium deposits using small nukes.
I remember hearing when it was announced last that fusion was achieved, scientists were skeptical that we had finally achieved this and we wouldn’t be actually putting it to use for decades to come.
But here we are. Yes it’s experimental but it’s working amd producing energy. I’m just surprised we’re here already, even if it’s only a proof of concept at this point
IAEA’s estimate is that Nuclear fusion, if successfully researched and demonstrated at full capacity within 2036 at ITER (which is already lagging behind schedule) will result in commercial availability in 2050. So yes, we are still decades away from putting it to use.
Source
Thanks for the explanation
Fusion is so dump. Were at least a couple decades away from brake even in the fusion reaction, but still people believe it will help solve the climate crisis.
Atm we put about 10 times nore energy into the whole system than we get out. And it generates nuclear waste because the wall materials absorb neutrons and get radioactive. And so many other unsolved problems… this technology is a nice research peoject, but none of us will ever see a commercial reactor in action, because it is so far away, if even possible.
So what? People should stop trying for a better tomorrow because today sucks?
No. Renewables are available and super cheap.
They are, and they are good solution but they are not good all and end all solutions, both wind and solar cannot meet baseload and when you start talking about battery storage as solution, scaling it up requires more metal mining than will ever be sustainable, so pursuit of fusion, pursuit of tidal energy, pursuit of better nuclear, pursuit of better geothermal are viable exploration options as we need baseload generation substitute.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d59014bd-da32-480b-9bd7-a21ebc61a236.jpeg">
You do not need batteries to store potential energy. You can pump water up a hill into a reservoir and then harvest the energy when you need it using hydroelectric energy.
Dams are a whole another story ecologically but even leaving that aside, we are talking 200-300GW capacity currently in the world for PHES, even if you construct damns on every possible lakes, estimates are around 1000GW that world can build. World currently consumes close to 8000GW on baseload. We won’t even cover 15% of baseload with PHES.
If you’re trolling with your storage as magical solution keep trolling.
Not sure if you are being willfully obtuse, I’m going to assume good faith.
A dam is a hydroelectric plant. you need a river a ravine and a lot more conditions to be met.
This is what I was talking about: en.wikipedia.org/…/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit…
and technically speaking potential energy could be stored by lifting bolders and then harvest the released energy when they are allowed to come down. There are many ways to device systems like such. You could even go underground and use drilled wells with two reservoirs at different levels for this.
You are mistaken to dismiss this outright without at least looking at the wiki i linked.
I’m not saying storing potential energy doesn’t work, it works and even though we lose some energy in conversion it’s still better than chemical batteries. No question there, my point is simple, we don’t have enough infrastructure to cover the world’s baseload demand by releasing stored energy. We need something that can produce baseload power 24x7. Geothermal and tidal(debatable but close enough) are the only viable renewable energy sources we have that run 24x7 and they’re not enough to cover the world’s energy demands. Adding PSEH doesn’t cover it either. We need something more and nuclear (fission or fusion) are the only other options that don’t emit CO2.
Here is where my disagreement lies. There is multitude of ways to store potential energy. I understand your point that only 16% of the world’s energy usage can be covered by natural sites that lend themselves to this. There are other ways to do this though, for one there is old coal mines that may be repurposed for this. There is also already existing systems like the sewers that can be outfitted to also allow stormdrains to double for this after repurposing them. There is many more way to store potential energy physically than just pumping water up a hill or between different levels of underground ravines…
You could use electrolysis, I am not sure how feasible that would be, however the assertion that this simply won’t work I do not buy. You could simply wind a large number of springs or other such maybe natural systems to create the same effect.
All of our energy comes either from the sun or from other stars that ceased. The amount of energy that hits the earth in the form of sunlight is massive and is imho the only presently available energy source we could use today on a large scale. This of course would require a massive engineering effort, but to outright dismiss this sounds like trolling to me.
Imagine making this kind of comment in a technology community.
Imagine not explaining your position instead only using derision.
El Barto if you are who you say you are, you will explain to us WHY the aforementioned is worthy of derision.
Because a technology community is usually filled with people interested in advancements in technology.
So, say, you’re interested in space telescopes, come to this community to read about the latest advancements and you’re hit with someone saying “pffftt, stick to ground telescopes, people!”
(I didn’t downvote you, by the way.)
I didn’t take you for the type to downvote me 😉
Max Planck plans on building an actual power plant in the 2030s. A stellerator (just like Wendelstein 7X) which, unlike Tokmaks, don’t have scaling issues. They will still need to nail down tritium breeding (ITER not getting anywhere, it should have provided that data) and there’s also some headaches about divertor panels which get (deliberately) hit by plasma and wear down quite a bit quicker than they would’ve hoped but a failure there would only get into the way of being price-competetive with other energy sources (lots of spare parts needed), not achieving net power output. Including cooling and everything, not just plasma heating.
As to it solving the climate crisis: Certainly not on its own, but possibly on the tail end of the transition. We don’t only need to fix the climate issue but also switch to a circular economy and having plenty of cheap energy makes that way, way easier to achieve.
Society grows strong when men plant trees in which shadow they will never sit.