Fusion energy will be developed in running in 15 years

[BrainNebula]

Fusion energy development has been ramped up considerably, and projections are now that fusion will be up-and-running in 15 years. Fusion will completely solve global warming issues, because it will create an infinite amount of completely clean energy.

Source

 

[Surface Detail]

Fusion energy development has been ramped up considerably, and projections are now that fusion will be up-and-running in 15 years. Fusion will completely solve global warming issues, because it will create an infinite amount of completely clean energy.

Source

It's pie-in-the-sky stuff. They haven't even designed a reactor yet!

 

[Kal'Stang]

It's pie-in-the-sky stuff. They haven't even designed a reactor yet!

Actually they have. ‘Star in a Jar' Fusion Reactor Works and Promises Infinite Energy

The problem is generating a strong enough magnetic field to contain what needs to be contained for the kind of fusion energy amount that they're talking about. The design is there, they just have to figure out how to create stronger magnetic fields.

 

[Surface Detail]

Actually they have. ‘Star in a Jar' Fusion Reactor Works and Promises Infinite Energy

The problem is generating a strong enough magnetic field to contain what needs to be contained for the kind of fusion energy amount that they're talking about. The design is there, they just have to figure out how to create stronger magnetic fields.

That's a different group. And no, they don't just have to figure out how to create stronger magnetic fields. There are all sorts of problems with a commercial reactor design that still need to be solved. Refuelling, for example.

 

[Kal'Stang]

That's a different group. And no, they don't just have to figure out how to create stronger magnetic fields. There are all sorts of problems with a commercial reactor design that still need to be solved. Refuelling, for example.

So what if its a different group? The point is that it IS happening. It's not a "pie-in-the-sky stuff" as you described it.

And refueling is easy. The fuel is hydrogen. It is THE most common element in the entire Universe. So common it makes up 75% of it. And 71% of the earth is covered with hydrogen...also known as H2O, or water. The hydrogen can be gotten through a process called electrolysis from it. Not to mention all the hydrogen gas that is below the Earths surface. And if that weren't enough, once this gets designed it will provide the ability to go into space and travel a lot quicker than we've been able to so far. Some of the planets in this solar system alone have tons of it. For instance Saturn is made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. Jupiter's upper atmosphere is made up of 90% hydrogen. And I could go on and on. Trust me...fueling will NOT be an issue.

 

[southwest88]

The future - it's where we'll all live

It's pie-in-the-sky stuff. They haven't even designed a reactor yet!

Yep, there are issues - & serious ones. Fusion has hyped its delivery date for decades now.

I'm optimistic that we'll eventually get there - but until someone produces a reactor with a net positive energy flow, it's probably too soon to start rejoicing.

& we should go ahead & look @ other energy sources - solar, geothermal, OTEC, windmills, tides - whatever is out there & can be scaled up to meet our needs in a sustainable way.

 

[longview]

Re: The future - it's where we'll all live

Yep, there are issues - & serious ones. Fusion has hyped its delivery date for decades now.

I'm optimistic that we'll eventually get there - but until someone produces a reactor with a net positive energy flow, it's probably too soon to start rejoicing.

& we should go ahead & look @ other energy sources - solar, geothermal, OTEC, windmills, tides - whatever is out there & can be scaled up to meet our needs in a sustainable way.

Solar can meet our energy needs until something better comes along, it just needs a storage methodology.

 

[southwest88]

Batteries not included

Solar can meet our energy needs until something better comes along, it just needs a storage methodology.

Yes, solar is fusion - but indirectly. Wind, tide, geothermal (?), fossil fuels - are all indirectly solar.

As for power storage for solar, we could simply build a network of solar collectors & emitters & control nodes in polar orbit - they'd be able to constantly generate power, & we'd merely redirect the power as needed - no storage necessary.

 

[longview]

Re: Batteries not included

Yes, solar is fusion - but indirectly. Wind, tide, geothermal (?), fossil fuels - are all indirectly solar.

As for power storage for solar, we could simply build a network of solar collectors & emitters & control nodes in polar orbit - they'd be able to constantly generate power, & we'd merely redirect the power as needed - no storage necessary.

I think it would be simpler to store traditional solar power as man made hydrocarbon fuel.
The process could likely be adapted to existing refineries, who already have large power grid ties.
The fuel produced could be carbon neutral, and has an existing demand.
We simply need to wait the few years until the man made fuels become the least expensive choice.
(I think this will happen when oil is between $90 and $100 a barrel.)

 

[BrainNebula]

It's pie-in-the-sky stuff. They haven't even designed a reactor yet!

Actually, there are fusion reactors, they just don't create a net energy gain at this point. They need better magnets for the net energy gain, and those magnets have now been developed. Pretty much everything necessary to create fusion power is developed, they just need to put it all together now.

 

[BrainNebula]

Re: The future - it's where we'll all live

Yep, there are issues - & serious ones. Fusion has hyped its delivery date for decades now.

I'm optimistic that we'll eventually get there - but until someone produces a reactor with a net positive energy flow, it's probably too soon to start rejoicing.

& we should go ahead & look @ other energy sources - solar, geothermal, OTEC, windmills, tides - whatever is out there & can be scaled up to meet our needs in a sustainable way.

Don't you realize what you are saying? You won't rejoice until it's fully developed. Okay, I guess.

 

[DDD]

Fusion will completely solve global warming issues, because it will create an infinite amount of completely clean energy.

Creating infinite amount of completely clean energy could stop us from producing energy and releasing more green house gases into the atmosphere. However, what about the already piled up green house gases that may already be causing global climate change?

 

[BrainNebula]

Creating infinite amount of completely clean energy could stop us from producing energy and releasing more green house gases into the atmosphere. However, what about the already piled up green house gases that may already be causing global climate change?

The Earth will naturally heal itself over time. Carbon scrubbers have already been developed if we really needed them, but they are expensive, so it would probably be better just to let the Earth heal itself.

 

[DDD]

The Earth will naturally heal itself over time. Carbon scrubbers have already been developed if we really needed them, but they are expensive, so it would probably be better just to let the Earth heal itself.

Heal itself?! How?

 

[BrainNebula]

Heal itself?! How?

The Earth's systems will naturally drop the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and some carbon is normal. For instance, plants breathing will help drop the CO2 levels.

 

[longview]

Creating infinite amount of completely clean energy could stop us from producing energy and releasing more green house gases into the atmosphere. However, what about the already piled up green house gases that may already be causing global climate change?

The solution and the problem are possibly the same!
No matter how we create the energy, we have to be able to store it in a portable high density container.
With current technology, hydrocarbons are about the best way to store energy, (It is how nature does it).
One of the limitations to making vast amounts of hydrocarbon fuel, is where to get all that carbon.
(I think a 6 pound gallon of gasoline contains about 4 pounds of carbon).
We have a ready source of carbon in the form of atmospheric CO2.
Fuel made form atmospheric Co2 would be carbon neutral when burned.
This path would mean that CO2 would stop going up, and the natural processes could lower levels over time.

 

[longview]

Heal itself?! How?

The same math that lets burning a 6 pound gallon of gasoline produce 20 lbs of CO2 works the other way as well.
Each pound of biomass, consumes about 3 lbs of CO2.

 

[DDD]

@ Nebula and Longview

Thanks,

Hope you are right.

 

[Deuce]

Fusion power has been 20 years away for about 50 years now

 

[Surface Detail]

So what if its a different group? The point is that it IS happening. It's not a "pie-in-the-sky stuff" as you described it.

And refueling is easy. The fuel is hydrogen. It is THE most common element in the entire Universe. So common it makes up 75% of it. And 71% of the earth is covered with hydrogen...also known as H2O, or water. The hydrogen can be gotten through a process called electrolysis from it. Not to mention all the hydrogen gas that is below the Earths surface. And if that weren't enough, once this gets designed it will provide the ability to go into space and travel a lot quicker than we've been able to so far. Some of the planets in this solar system alone have tons of it. For instance Saturn is made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. Jupiter's upper atmosphere is made up of 90% hydrogen. And I could go on and on. Trust me...fueling will NOT be an issue.

That's not what I meant. Sure, there's plenty of fuel around, though the most practical fusion reactions require deuterium and/or tritium isotopes of hydrogen. No, the refuelling problem refers to the problem of actually getting the fuel into a steady state reactor and also removing the exhaust. This is a formidable engineering challenge that nobody has yet solved.

My PhD involved modelling the behaviour of plasma inside a tokamak (specifically JET, at the Culham Science Centre, near Oxford in the UK), so I do know what I'm talking about here. When I started my PhD, I was very hopeful of being able to make a contribution to a new, clean source of energy. By the time I finished it, it was very clear to me just how great the challenges are. I ended up feeling that the money would be better spent on renewables instead.

 

[Surface Detail]

Fusion power has been 20 years away for about 50 years now

Yup

 

[Surface Detail]

Actually, there are fusion reactors, they just don't create a net energy gain at this point. They need better magnets for the net energy gain, and those magnets have now been developed. Pretty much everything necessary to create fusion power is developed, they just need to put it all together now.

There are indeed fusion reactors, and I have had the pleasure of working on the JET tokamak near Oxford in the UK. However, these are all experimental devices that are only capable of sustaining a fusion reaction for a couple of minutes at most. The engineering challenges of building a steady-state reactor are enormous, and there remain many unsolved problems. Fusion power generation is possible in theory, but extremely difficult in practice.

 

[Kal'Stang]

That's not what I meant. Sure, there's plenty of fuel around, though the most practical fusion reactions require deuterium and/or tritium isotopes of hydrogen. No, the refuelling problem refers to the problem of actually getting the fuel into a steady state reactor and also removing the exhaust. This is a formidable engineering challenge that nobody has yet solved.

My PhD involved modelling the behaviour of plasma inside a tokamak (specifically JET, at the Culham Science Centre, near Oxford in the UK), so I do know what I'm talking about here. When I started my PhD, I was very hopeful of being able to make a contribution to a new, clean source of energy. By the time I finished it, it was very clear to me just how great the challenges are. I ended up feeling that the money would be better spent on renewables instead.

I see what you're talking about now. I have no clue on that so won't butt in on that.

However in regards to solar power et al....The problem with them is that they are all confining to the planet and is an even more daunting task to collect and use for travel between the planets. This planet will not hold us forever. If we are to survive then we need to go into space and not rely on solar or geothermal power.

 

[Surface Detail]

I see what you're talking about now. I have no clue on that so won't butt in on that.

However in regards to solar power et al....The problem with them is that they are all confining to the planet and is an even more daunting task to collect and use for travel between the planets. This planet will not hold us forever. If we are to survive then we need to go into space and not rely on solar or geothermal power.

Our chances of making it to other planets would be improved by not rendering the current one uninhabitable!

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Re: Batteries not included

I think it would be simpler to store traditional solar power as man made hydrocarbon fuel.
The process could likely be adapted to existing refineries, who already have large power grid ties.
The fuel produced could be carbon neutral, and has an existing demand.
We simply need to wait the few years until the man made fuels become the least expensive choice.
(I think this will happen when oil is between $90 and $100 a barrel.)

Just recently saw an article about a group that has developed method to do just that

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180903113348.htm