For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
I'm not sure how long would it be before we get a fusion reactor started, maybe another 50 years? Fusion seems like it had huge potential the reacton that happans in the core of the sun where hydrogen fuses to form helium, giving off with it a large amount of energy. Does anyone think fusion would be the answer or would help alleviate the energy problem?
At least another 50 years under current economic conditions. If the economy grinds to a halt as it is likely to do R&D will be one of the first things to go. Society will be too busy trying to maintain what they already have to make any big attempts to find anything new.
Fusion is not even energy positive at any level of testing except in Spiderman 2.
The future of electricity is currently wind, coal, nuclear, solar, hydro. Those five sources are what you are likely to see as natural gas and oil decline.
Eventually oil and natural gas will not be economical as an energy source for power. They will only be used for feedstocks for products and fertilizers. We will likely never run out of either oil or natural gas. But once peak starts the decline, their economic value shifts quickly away from being a power source.
I've found that many people who get that glossy look in their eye when ever they preach the benefits of a theoretical energy source have seen too many science fiction movies or read too many of them books. It's kind of like listening to an eigteen-year-old girl from the Midwest talk about how shes going to become a famous actor, only ending up in porn a month after she moves to Hollywood.
Even if a new fusion reactor prototype grew out of the ground tomorrow, it would take a ridiculous amount of money to mass produce the reactors to serve a growing population.
Most alternatives have severe flaws when it comes to supporting billions of people, but fusion isn't even realistic to begin with.
Joined: May 26, 2004 Posts: 309 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:54 pm Post subject:
If you check the FAQ on www.iter.org (which was written before 2000) the earliest they could possibly have commericial fusion going was 2050. Then, instead of acting, the governments have been dragging their heels on where to build it for 5 years. -_-
Basically, the plan is this: build ITER, see if they can get more energy then they put in. Work out the kinks. Then, build DEMO, a commercial sized REACTOR that will actually attach a turbine and steam cycle and try to generate power. Then, once they're comfortable with the technology, the first small generation of fusion plants can make an uncertain start with a small handful of experts guiding it.
We can agree, 2050 being the peak is wildly optimisic. Having commericial fusion in our hands by 2050 is wildly optimistic. Therefore, if we're incredibly lucky on both accounts, the first handful of fusion reactors will be building just as the peak hits.
The bad news is both those cases will never happen. It's so infuriating! So many promising leads we're one or two generations away from mastering, and the peak has to hit now.
The good news is, ITER's an international project. So if fusion is ever cracked, many parts of the world should have dibs on it. _________________ "Our forces are now closer to the center of Baghdad than most American commuters are to their downtown office."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, April 2003
As far as commercial it's a long way off if ever. IMO all money currently going into fusion IMO should be used developing commercial scale Integral Fast Reactor facilities.
In the early 1960s, I had a neighbour who was a research scientist at the Plasma Physics lab at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne. He said they were at the threshold of a stable pinch in their toroid and that fusion would be commonplace by 1970 and commercially producing power in the 1980s. Ten years later, when he emigrated from Switzerland to Melbourne, to continue his fusion research, he had postponed these predictions by another 10 years. Since then, I keep hearing these predictions postponed more and more.
Who was it who said that if a new technology takes more than 20 years to develop, it will never be developed? _________________ Devil
I thought I would revive this topic, and I'm going to sort of play devil's advocate here..
I think we may be unnecessarily pessimistic about the possiblities of ITER, and commercial fusion power. I often here fusion disregarded as 'impossible' or 'always 20 years away', but after all, the 'conventional wisdom' we all are so fond of pointing out the wrongness of with regards to oil is that
"We always have 20 (or whatever) years of oil left". (The implication in this statement that we will never really run out. When we say 'fusion is always 20 years away' could we be being illogical in a similar way? After all, technology and understanding is progressing. Wrong estimates in the past don't prove something never will happen!
Second, fusion is not some concept that is by-definition impossible, such as 'hydrogen as an energy source'. Obviously fusion does work, in stars at least. Furthermore, we have gotten controlled hot fusion working in the past in tokamak reactors, we just haven't gotten a positive energy balance- so doesn't this seem to be a matter of simply improving the technology? Remember, not only is ITER the biggest project of this sort ever done, but I believe it's the first done with superconducting materials for the magnetic fusion-containment. I'm obviously not an expert, but that seems to be a fairly big difference and a big improvement in the basic design of the tokamak- I saw a previous design where they had to pump liquid through the electromagnets to cool them, since they were just copper. That seems piss-poor compared with superconducting magnets. Now I'm not saying that in itself will make something like ITER a possible energy -positive device, but I don't think we should just write off these technology gains. People worked for a long time trying to get flying machines to work, and most just thought it was impossible, like 'when men fly'- until technologies gradually improved enough to get to the point where it worked.
Now I draw this parallel because flight, like fusion, is something that DOES occur in nature. Birds always flew, it was physically possible, human flying machines just weren't efficient enough. Fusion does occur in human experimental reactors now, they just aren't efficient enough to get a positive energy balance.
Third, is there any reason why these 50 year timeframes are set in stone? It's not like we're making a fine wine here- and I realize construction and testing does take time- but it seems that IF sufficiently motivated, we could speed things up tremendously? Manhattan project style?
I'm not saying that 'fusion will save us', but I think maybe we should be a little more thoughtful about fusion.
Joined: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 1104 Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:56 pm Post subject:
lostech wrote:
I'm not saying that 'fusion will save us', but I think maybe we should be a little more thoughtful about fusion.
I'm with you on this. The space station is a welfare program for engineers. Scrap it. Plunge it into the atmosphere for all I care. It's a waste of time and money. We should have been putting those funds into fusion research. Doesn't mean we'll achieve anything practical, but what a much more forward way to use our resources instead of builing that tin-can in the sky.
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 1647 Location: Davis, California
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 8:42 pm Post subject:
There's a joke that goes around with fusion researchers.
"Fusion is 50 years off and always will be."
Unfortunately, fusion seems to be too far off. For one thing, we lack a theory of gravity for subatomic distances. This is probably near the top of the long list of problems fusion researchers have. There are many other problems, that given money, could probably be solved. Most countries are not willing to invest however. NG at $7 dollars and Oil at $50 are still hundreds of times more profitable than fusion ever will be for this current generation.
The story of the 20th century will be short-term gain for long-term loss.
yea. for the past several(oh about 8 or so years) i have been interested in technology they have been saying "we are just around the corner on breakthru in fusion"
(If I was speaking this wouldn't be in a confrontational tone of voice), but did you read my post? It has been a while since a significant new project (like ITER) has been done. I'm not a fusion researcher- but I don't think all those experts working on these projects think it's hopeless, they just think it will take a long time- probably largely because they have constraints in terms of budget, politics, etc. Remember, ITER is expected to have a positive energy balance.
Omar, the lack of a theory of gravity for subatomic distances is interesting.. I'm going to read up on that. Do you happen to have any links to information on how that missing knowledge comes into play in the design of tokamak and laser reactors? I would appreciate it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
