ghostdoggtv,

Based on current events, nuclear fusion plus corporate greed is probably the solution to the fermi paradox.

avidamoeba,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

X

profdc9,

It’s not about any advances in fusion. It’s about the list of idiots they’ve raised money from.

assassin_aragorn,

If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. Back to the drawing board.

If it works, then let’s reproduce it a couple times to be sure that it works, and then start pouring concrete. Fusion isn’t worth pursuing just because of global warming, but because it’s akin to making energy out of nothing. We would have a nigh limitless capacity for conducting fusion and generating energy. A future with unlimited energy isn’t a climate goal necessarily, it’s a massive leap for humanity overall.

Whoresradish,

Unfortunately everything I have read indicates very few experts in nuclear energy believe it could be possible in the future.

assassin_aragorn,

I have very significant doubts myself yeah

KISSmyOS,

Even if they miraculously figured out how to build a commercially viable reactor TODAY, it would be too late to be more than a tiny building block of a zero carbon strategy.
Building enough of them, including all necessary global infrastructure would take 30 years. If we continue business as usual till then, it’s already over.
And fusion would only reduce carbon emissions in the energy sector, not in transportation, shipping, resource gathering/refining, etc.

2fat4that,
2fat4that avatar

Reducing carbon emissions isn’t the primary goal here though. The primary goal is infinite clean energy. INFINITE power. The plant in France could become operational within 5 years. The harnessing of this power is a milestone for our species.

HubertManne,
HubertManne avatar

fusion won't give us infinite power. It requires tritium last I knew.

assassin_aragorn,

What’s the bottleneck there? Is there a reason why we couldn’t scale up production? Genuinely asking.

HubertManne,
HubertManne avatar

It costs energy to make. Im not sure really if its net positive overall but its enough that the moon is talked about for its tritium deposits which makes me think its not very easy to make. wikipedia has some stuff on it but its hard to get overall. Anyway though its not some magical unlimited energy. it has inputs and outputs like anything else.

assassin_aragorn,

Of course, yeah. I think we would see nearly unlimited, free energy, but there’s obviously still bounds and constraints. I think it could very well be enough energy to be considered limitless for everyday activities and industry, and only run into issues with things like space travel. But we’ll have to see. It’s such a new field in terms of actually having things to show for, there’s a lot we don’t know.

HubertManne,
HubertManne avatar

Im very skeptical it would get anywhere near that. Besides tritium I know the reactors need certain shielding that gets worn out and becomes radioactive. tritium can be made from fission plants and fusion makes radioactive elements but given everything else we have seen with technology I am doubting these are going to play off each other in a net positive way that can just be kept on going. Its in some ways a lot like wind/solar/water. The sunlight/wind/maybetidal is unlimited but the materials for the collectors are not and have to be replaced. We are really good at using up energy sources and there are like 8 billion of us.

Fosheze,

From what I understand tritium is the easiest but there are other ways to acheive fusion. Once we figure out deuterium-tritium fusion we should be able to work towards something like deuterium-deuterium fusion. You also have methods that can be used to manufacture tritium. One of the later stages of the ITER project is to attempt to use the reactor to breed tritium. If they can pull that off then there would be no need for external sources of tritium.

HubertManne,
HubertManne avatar

I mean even given that there are other resources that go into it. Fusion will give us more time but its not going to allow super inefficient things like sucking the carbon back out. I don't have great hope because given we squandered the last 50 years I doubt more time will help us. All the same though its better to have it than not have it.

assassin_aragorn,

I still think it’s prudent to build the plants as a backup plan for zero emissions. The best time build a bunch of nuclear plants was 30 years ago, and the second best is now – because 30 years from now, I don’t want us to still be in the same situation of “we should’ve built them years ago”. Fusion has the capacity to be a nearly limitless, clean energy source. Even if we already have zero emissions when we turn them on, they can give us an abundance of energy we’ve never seen before.

Think about the possibilities if energy was free and unlimited. There’s a lot of stuff today that is limited because they’re energy inefficient. That would stop mattering. Clean water can be generated en masse through reverse osmosis. Everything gets easier to build and to operate. The only operating costs of significance would be maintenance. High speed travel hubs could be built anywhere and everywhere. Even the worst quality soil could be made arable. We could constantly monitor a bunch of parameters for the sake of monitoring them – we could determine for instance if we’re depleting seawater by significant levels when we purify it, and we can course correct it then and there. What could be a second climate crisis otherwise would be nipped in the bud since we wouldn’t have to wait so long to see after effects.

I’m talking like a kid at a candy store, but it’s honestly super exciting to think about. This would be the next step for energy after sustainability, and it would completely transform everything for the better.

Fafner,
@Fafner@yiffit.net avatar

Just another 20 years…

FrickAndMortar,

ALWAYS just another 20 years…

interceder270,

Hey frick.

FrickAndMortar,

👋🏼 👋🏼 👋🏼 👋🏼 👋🏼

Boddhisatva,

Like the article said, Fusion is the energy of the future… and always will be.

theKalash,

It will work eventually. Just give them another 25 years.

FlyingSquid,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

If only there was some sort of big fusion ball in the sky which gave us vast amounts of energy that we could collect if we wanted to…

orclev,

Today’s shower thought: is a fusion power plant just a miniaturized Dyson Sphere?

SoggyBread,

I get where youre going but not exactly. The dyson sphere would use solar energy but the fusion reactor, a tokomak specifically, uses steam generated by water pumped through the system to help keep the walls of the tokomak cool, to spin steam powered turbines

evatronic,

I’m constantly amazed that we’re working on super advanced power generation techniques… that still use steam to spin turbines.

It feels like we should be doing something cooler, like plasma conduits from Star Trek.

davidgro,

Look into what Helion Energy is doing. Not saying it will or won’t work, but they plan to extract the energy directly from the plasma electromagnetically.

QuinceDaPence,

Just about the best way to do it for an external 'combustion' heat engine. Stirling engines can be used in some cases but in most cases steam ends up being the better option.

We spent centuries getting really good at using steam for getting work out of 'hot thing'.

interceder270,

How does the power grid work?:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1BMWczn7JM

BedbugCutlefish, (edited )
@BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world avatar

I hope it works.

But I’m skeptical enough to say that I think this is a scam. We’re closing in, research wise, on getting fusion to generate more power than it takes to run. Which is awesome!

But its still a far trek from that figure, to producing enough power to be practical (I’ve heard it said you really need to aim for 10x more production than input, minimum, for it to make any sense).

And that is still a trek from making a fusion plant competitive with existing grid power.

I’m skeptical if this plant they’re building will even generate power, which is like three steps away from making commercial sense at all.

wrinkletip,

You’re right, but you can’t use the word ‘scam’ for it. It’s an avenue that should be explored fully and may or may not lead somewhere. A scam would imply it’s a conspiracy where the players already know the unsuccessful end result, but are hiding it and using funding or similar for other end purposes.

BedbugCutlefish,
@BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world avatar

That is what I think the owner is doing here. Scamming venture capital firms for a tech that cannot work.

And I mean, its not like I have any proof. I can’t read minds; maybe he is a true believer.

But this company feels like those companies back in the 80s that sold tickets to mars, for the rockets they were ‘just about to build’; a scam.

This isn’t a research firm. This isn’t trying to find the exact settings and layouts to make fusion possible. If the article can be taken at face value, this is a company to make a commercial fusion plant. And I find that, in 2023, patently absurd.

assassin_aragorn,

I don’t think I trust the commercial companies, but the research coming out of national labs is promising at least

BedbugCutlefish,
@BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world avatar

I agree. I’m very much for more research into fusion. I’m still somewhat skeptical of it ever being ‘infinite cheap energy’. But even if it never becomes a ‘good energy source’, the advancement of knowledge is valuable. So its not like I think fusion is a scam overall.

But I think this particular company is.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • news@lemmy.world
  • kavyap
  • rosin
  • mdbf
  • DreamBathrooms
  • everett
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • cubers
  • GTA5RPClips
  • khanakhh
  • Durango
  • thenastyranch
  • modclub
  • HellsKitchen
  • osvaldo12
  • anitta
  • ethstaker
  • InstantRegret
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • tacticalgear
  • relationshipadvice
  • lostlight
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines