Fusion?

[pocaracas]

Indeed.... but how to harness all that power?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

The grand thing is, we don't have to harness all of it.  Attend:

The sun produces (roughly) 3.8 x 10^27 joules of energy every second.  World energy consumption is on the close order of 6 x 10^20 joules per year.  Obviously a lot of what the sun produces is (from our perspective) wasted - only around 2 billionths of what the sun produces gets to us.  But that translates into the Earth receiving about as much energy every second as the world uses in a year.

Rounding down, there are about 30 million seconds in a year.  Thus, if we converted 1/30 000 000th of available sunlight into usable power every year, we'd be set until the dear old Sol burns herself out (not that we're going to last that long, anyroad).

We don't know how to make fusion workable.  We don't know how to build Dyson Spheres (or even Niven-esque Ringworlds).  But we DO know how to turn sunlight into electricity.  Solar powering our planet won't be easy, but it is really just a problem of scale.  The others are problems that are possibly insoluble from a technological standpoint.

Boru

yeah... I was once that optimistic about photovoltaics... then I learned how dirty the process of creating electronics is... and photovoltaics are just silicon electronic devices... Don't get me started on rarer semiconductors.

But, there is a way: electricity generation from heat. Heat from the sun is quite easy and cheap and broadly available all over the world (but not in the UK, sorry). And that heat can power a turbine or something... But, for that to be profitable, you need a huge surface of mirrors concentrating the heat on one turbine, not something most home-owners would be able to do on their roof-tops... just something on a power plant scale.
We have a bunch of desert in northern Africa, with a lot of heat going to waste. Just think if all the countries around the Sahara were powered by desert heat.
Each time I think about the natural wealth in that continent just going to waste, due to stupid feuds among the people there.... ARGGHGHHH!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I agree with everything you've said. But still...fusion, schmoosion.

Boru

[AFTT47]

We already HAVE a fully functional fusion reactor.



Boru

That argument REALLY has to stop because it's fucking stupid.

Of course, just about everyone following this is well aware that the sun is a gigantic, natural fusion reactor. But harnessing its energy (at least from Earth's surface) is not terribly efficient or cheap. Don't get me wrong - I LOVE solar energy. There's nothing better than energy we can get for nothing - but is it really? We have to manufacture the systems and deploy it on a substantial amount of land. Then we have to distribute it across long distances. It's doable and I'm all for it but STOP pretending it is in the same category as massive fusion power plants running on sea water. That's ridiculous. The former would be (and is) awesome progress we should all applaud but the latter is an absolute game-changer. Fusion power plants, generating more power than they consume, feeding off deuterium from sea water would absolutely revolutionize the world.

Please don't make it an either/or thing. Renewable energy from solar and wind is great and we should absolutely pursue that. But if we can succeed, artificial nuclear fusion is just fucking awesome and a true paradigm changer. Let's pursue both.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That argument REALLY has to stop because it's fucking stupid

.

You view unlimited power from a technology we already have as 'fucking stupid'?  Well, handsome is as handsome does, I suppose.

But harnessing its energy (at least from Earth's surface) is not terribly efficient or cheap.

Actually, it IS efficient, and it can be made cheap.  Cheaper than fusion, anyroad.

Don't get me wrong - I LOVE solar energy.

Solar energy quivers with excitement at your declaration of love.

There's nothing better than energy we can get for nothing - but is it really?

No, it isn't.  But then no one - not even me - said we can get solar energy for nothing.

We have to manufacture the systems

Now, there's a complete devastating argument.  Because we clearly have never had to manufacture systems we use for coal or fission or natural gas.  And we certainly won't have to build fusion plants at a trillion dollars a pop.

and deploy it on a substantial amount of land.

I wouldn't go so far as to call that statement 'fucking stupid', but it's colossally ignorant.  Solar collection installations take up a lot less groundage than most people think.  Look it up.

Then we have to distribute it across long distances.

*shrug*  My power is produced by a plant more than 200 miles away.  If conventional power can be transported long distances, why do you assume it's a problem for solar?  And why wouldn't it be for fusion?

It's doable and I'm all for it but STOP pretending it is in the same category as massive fusion power plants running on sea water. That's ridiculous

I agree completely - a technology we have is not in the same category as one we don't.

The former would be (and is) awesome progress we should all applaud but the latter is an absolute game-changer.

I agree.  I agree.

Fusion power plants, generating more power than they consume, feeding off deuterium from sea water would absolutely revolutionize the world.

So would gorillas in pink tutus quoting Ibsen in Klingon.  But I don't expect to see that any time soon, either.

Please don't make it an either/or thing.

I'm not.  My wife and I own a Land Rover and a Passat.  When we take a trip, it's an 'either /or thing'.  Taking the Land rover or the Lamborghini is NOT an either/or thing.  Why?  BECAUSE WE DON'T OWN A LAMBO!!

Please don't make it an either/or thing. Renewable energy from solar and wind is great and we should absolutely pursue that. But if we can succeed, artificial nuclear fusion is just fucking awesome and a true paradigm changer. Let's pursue both.

I agree that more than one source of power for human beings is better than 'all eggs in one basket' sort of thing, but what is the point of spending billions (possibly trillions) of pursuing a technology that may never come off when that money could be better spent on renewables that we already know how to harness?  Not just solar and wind, but geothermal, hydro and others.

Suppose you have $100 and you're hungry - not starving, just seriously famished.  Within walking distance of you are places to get burgers, pizza, sushi, Mexican, Thai, Chinese, salad, fish - hundreds of choices.  Would you opt for one of those when you need food now, or would you spend the next week not eating because you're searching for braised penguin in bumblebee sauce?

Boru

[Alex K]

Brian,

I think your food analogy is flawed. Fusion is not as speculative as you make it sound (we can be reasonably certain that e.g. ITER will produce net energy), and considering the importance of energy technology, the amount spent on advancing fusion is very small. It's more like you have 1000$, are you going to buy a twinkie or M&ms, and spend the rest on whatever.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah what's up Brian with pulling nuggets from your ars like

And we certainly won't have to build fusion plants at a trillion dollars a pop.

Come on, ITER costs 22 billion dollars and it's only a prototype. Compare it to cost of war in Iraq and it costs as much as one month of war in Iraq and chances of being killed by a terrorist are slightly bigger then being hit by a meteor and yet government still goes over it's ways to pour trillions of dollars on it.

Sure fusion will revolutionize the world giving us power to make cheap gas, cheap electricity, burn garbage and nuclear waste and also be able to use energy to make such big temperatures that we would be able to convert the matter from one form to another so that we don't need to mine anymore. Truly that will be the world so advanced that compared us to them would be like comparing medieval peasant to modern people of today.
And as plasma physicist Dr. Francis Chen says that Apollo like urgent program to bring fusion online would cost less then Apollo program did and would solve our CO2 problem and oil dependency problem.
The main problem is who is going to organize it? There are solution to make US independent of oil and gas like I posted in one of previous posts but even that seems to be over politicians heads and you must be aware that time is ticking. Forget about the year 2100, real doomsday might come sooner then you think: Arctic is rapidly and melting there are huge reservoirs of methane on the sea floor there which could get released into the atmosphere as there is no white shield of ice to reflect the sun rays and if that gets released - especially since Shell is also starting to drill there - Global warming will start quickly to rise and then it's the end of us all.
For instance Great Permian Extinction which was Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct. It is the only known mass extinction of insects. Is considered to be caused by runaway greenhouse effect triggered by sudden release of methane from the sea floor.

In spite of that our faiths are in hands of politicians that are not only unbothered by this but even claim that US should look upon China because of their industrial growth, since they don't have this ecological laws that are "killing jobs". I mean just imagine poor NIKE if they suddenly weren't able to make their snickers for $1 and sell it for $100 - they would go broke.
Of course they never mention that people there are living an appalling conditions, in a horribly poisoned environment where just from burning coal and oil in power-plants dies 4000 people every day. They say that because they are "intellectuals" which today means they have a price that shapes their thoughts and in case of drilling Arctic, Shell payed them $4,5 billion.

Also remember in 2002. in Copenhagen United States and China—signed a nonbinding agreement pledging to keep temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius above where they were before we started powering our economies with coal. (That converts to an increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.) It is a very risky target for all of us: so far, temperatures have increased by just 0.8 degree Celsius and we are already experiencing many alarming impacts, including the unprecedented melting of the Greenland ice sheet in the summer of 2012 and the acidification of oceans far more rapidly than expected.
2012 report, the World Bank laid out report that said: “As global warming approaches and exceeds 2-degrees Celsius, there is a risk of triggering nonlinear tipping elements. Examples include the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet leading to more rapid sea-level rise, or large-scale Amazon dieback drastically affecting ecosystems, rivers, agriculture, energy production, and livelihoods. This would further add to 21st-century global warming and impact entire continents.”

Also because governments did not agree to binding targets, they are free to pretty much ignore their commitments. Which is precisely what is happening. Indeed, emissions are rising so rapidly that unless something radical changes within our economic structure, 2 degrees now looks like a utopian dream. The World Bank also warned that “we’re on track for a 4°C warmer world [by century’s end] marked by extreme heat waves, there is also no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible. Based on the latest modeling, it is becoming safer to assume that at 4°C global vegetation becomes too saturated to act as a reliable “sink,” leading to more carbon being emitted rather than stored. Once this happens, any hope of predicting impacts pretty much goes out the window.

[Fake Messiah]

Yay! There seem to be some very good news coming soon...





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...tists.html

‘Stellarator’ reactor to be turned on for first time: Strange twisted design could finally make fusion power a reality, say scientists

- Wendelstein 7-X can contain plasma for more than 30 minutes at a time
- It is an alternative to the common donut-shaped Tokamak reactor design
- W7-X reactor claims to be safer and more effective at containing plasma
- Device is currently awaiting regulatory approval for startup in November

[Alex K]

That is great news - however, bear in mind that the Wendelstein is first of all supposed to study the behaviour of hydrogen plasma in a Stellarator. It is not scheduled to produce any actual nuclear fusion for the time being.

[pocaracas]

Stellarator engineering is lagging a bit behind the tokamak one, but it does promise to be the superior design.
Certainly, historical factors do have their contribution... and also the old funding problem.

[zebo-the-fat]

Fusion is 25 years away... and always will be!