Will humans ever achieve Fusion Power?
Poll: Will humans ever achieve Fusion Power?
Total Members Polled: 135
Discussion
I've been reading about the ambitions and obstacles of ITER, the current cost of >$14BN, the political disagreements over funding, etc. On one hand I personally think it great that multi-national science projects like this are even possible in Europe given that WWII was barely even a lifetime ago. And the prize is absolutely huge- everything the atomic age promised with none of the drawbacks, oil will be reduced to a niche chemical commodity and going to war over it would seem ridiculous.
On the other hand, I look at our creaking infrastructure, economic pressures, yet more chaos in the Middle East, or the way that the world of the Greeks, Incas, Romans and ancient Egyptians and most other ancient civilizations must have seemed pretty permanent just a few short centuries before they were reduced to historical footnotes and I think it's more likely we'll be dragged into a new dark age before we get there.
Doh'. 5000+ posts and this is the first time I put one in the wrong forum. Sorry all
On the other hand, I look at our creaking infrastructure, economic pressures, yet more chaos in the Middle East, or the way that the world of the Greeks, Incas, Romans and ancient Egyptians and most other ancient civilizations must have seemed pretty permanent just a few short centuries before they were reduced to historical footnotes and I think it's more likely we'll be dragged into a new dark age before we get there.
Doh'. 5000+ posts and this is the first time I put one in the wrong forum. Sorry all
Edited by glazbagun on Thursday 17th December 19:44
Speaking from experience, having visited JET twice (fusion reactor in Oxfordshire) and understanding the physics (physics graduate and teacher) I can assure you that it isn't a case of 'if' but 'when' fusion will provide electricity to our national grid.
ITER is the 'next step' in terms of development and ultimately will pave the way for abundant, cheap electricity. The problem with fusion has always been that the government failed to start funding its development when it had the chance (about 30 years before it should have begun). This means it is not where it could theoretically be.
The process of fusion is relatively simple, but confining a plasma of millions of degrees for long periods is not easy. Development is slow as the inside of a fusion reactor can only be altered with remote handling. It is however, perfectly viable but current reactors are at their limit in terms of size. ITER will take us closer to self sustaining fusion.
ITER is the 'next step' in terms of development and ultimately will pave the way for abundant, cheap electricity. The problem with fusion has always been that the government failed to start funding its development when it had the chance (about 30 years before it should have begun). This means it is not where it could theoretically be.
The process of fusion is relatively simple, but confining a plasma of millions of degrees for long periods is not easy. Development is slow as the inside of a fusion reactor can only be altered with remote handling. It is however, perfectly viable but current reactors are at their limit in terms of size. ITER will take us closer to self sustaining fusion.
Moonhawk said:
Globally - fusion research is chronically underfunded, which is bonkers considering it's potential.
Hardly, it gets billions; fission on the other hand is treated as the idiot half-brother and starved of R&D outside of tiny iterative improvements to the existing PWR paradigm, despite it actually working and being safe.MrCarPark said:
Fusion was '25 years away' when I started work, 25 years ago. Not much of any real significance has been achieved since.
We might luck into something, but I think gas/nuclear/solar/wind/storage will keep fusion on the back burner for the rest of this century.
ThisWe might luck into something, but I think gas/nuclear/solar/wind/storage will keep fusion on the back burner for the rest of this century.
When fusion was first proposed somewhere about the 50s it was '25-30 years away' - it still is.
ITER even with buckets of money is nowhere near a generating level so I can't see that (generating capability) being built for 25+ years and even then there would be a prototype tested for years before rolling out any wider capability. I suspect 50+ years minimum before any significant capacity even being close.
Add the fact that it isn't actually as 'clean' as the myth and sooner or later the bubble will burst.
hidetheelephants said:
Hardly, it gets billions; fission on the other hand is treated as the idiot half-brother and starved of R&D outside of tiny iterative improvements to the existing PWR paradigm, despite it actually working and being safe.
Some sciences have always seemed sexier/better promoted than others, I guess. A quick google says that the US alone has spent ~$22BN (~$29BN total) on fusion research over nearly 60 years. Averaging to ~half a billion dollars= ~£330Million/year for 60 years. If the USA's GDP is 18trillion, that doesn't seem like they're really trying that hard.By way of comparison, the Manhattan project ate $26BN(adjusted) in five years.
Channel Tunnel was £12BN (adj)
The Apollo program total cost was ~$120BN in todays money.
Development costs for the F-35/JSF were $59BN
The Human Genome Project was a relative bargain at less than $5BN adjusted, over 13 years.
Compared to those it doesn't seem extravagant, The lack of any forseeable payoff that makes it look like a giant money pit, but isn't that the case with lots of science?
glazbagun said:
hidetheelephants said:
Hardly, it gets billions; fission on the other hand is treated as the idiot half-brother and starved of R&D outside of tiny iterative improvements to the existing PWR paradigm, despite it actually working and being safe.
Some sciences have always seemed sexier/better promoted than others, I guess. A quick google says that the US alone has spent ~$22BN (~$29BN total) on fusion research over nearly 60 years. Averaging to ~half a billion dollars= ~£330Million/year for 60 years. If the USA's GDP is 18trillion, that doesn't seem like they're really trying that hard.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-31/...
One other problem is 'big project' syndrome; ITER, NIF etc. have sucked all the funding up because they're big and prestigious and politicians can point to them and say 'look at the number of physicists employed and the number of papers they write; it's really good science!', and get guided tours of the gigantic and expensive apparatus. Smaller scale projects like Bussard's polywell have made great progress with funding equal to ITER's stationery budget, and they had to fight constantly against budget cuts; greater funding would have progressed the research much faster.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Saturday 19th December 16:44
rhinochopig said:
Halb said:
rhinochopig said:
It may well get skipped as a technology. It's theoretically possible to extract energy from electromagnetic zero-point radiation without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Unlikely but you never know.
Rodney McKay!Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff