Fusion - breakthrough or another false dawn

[telford_mike]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-572...

What do you think? Are we close to a breakthrough, or does fusion remain a holy grail?

[annodomini2]

Until they hit unity or net gain, it's all for naught.

Large reactors using magnetic confinement are on a road to nowhere.

Inverse Square Law

[Beati Dogu]

I'd rather the effort was put into more promising fission technology like Thorium. This fusion stuff seems like another boondoggle with no end in sight.

[sociopath]

When I was at university reading Physics, fusion power was only 20 years away.

40 years later fusion power is now only 20 years away.

I have confidence they'll do it, I just don't think it will be in the next 20 years (sustainable and with more power out than in)

[andy_s]

We'll get there, just not sure whether we'll be on Mars first.

[Flooble]

Much the same as sociopath, I remember buying a book at school which was explaining how fusion was nearly ready to provide us with endless energy (it was a proper physics textbook, not a pseudo-science fiction novel).

I'm rapidly approaching retirement!

I can't imagine how the guys who built JET (or the Stellerators, etc.) must feel, I think when it was built forty years ago they expected to achieve breakeven. Now, deep into retirement and it's still nowhere near.

[Wayoftheflower]

By 2050 there might still be 50% of the static energy consumption market left open to fusion deployment. But I imagine the bankrollers of this tech hoping for a fusion based nirvana with it supplanting all other sources will be looking over their shoulders at decentralised generation and mass storage.

Now if it can be seriously miniturised for use in shipping, long haul flight, spaceflight and Mr Fusions there's still plenty of opportunities.

Seriously awesome tech but may lose out in the race for actual usefullness.

[anonymous-user]

It wasn't that long ago the only transport was the horse and candles were the only to light your house.
Now we have cars that can do 200+, craft that can fly in space, led lighting thats controlled by a touch screen phone using signals through the air. None of these things would have been believed possible 200 years ago.
Its taking a long time for scientists to get fusion to work, and will most likely still take a long time, but I can't believe it won't be possible one day

[ChocolateFrog]

sociopath said:

When I was at university reading Physics, fusion power was only 20 years away.

40 years later fusion power is now only 20 years away.

I have confidence they'll do it, I just don't think it will be in the next 20 years (sustainable and with more power out than in)

I thought it was always 50 years away

In all seriousness though I'd be surprised if by 2100 fusion wasn't the dominant power source.

[ATG]

sociopath said:

When I was at university reading Physics, fusion power was only 20 years away.

40 years later...

Ditto, except 30 years later in my case.

ITER was the next-generation experiment back then. Every time that project's name crops up I wonder how it's going and the answer is always "still building it".

[sociopath]

ATG said:

sociopath said:

When I was at university reading Physics, fusion power was only 20 years away.

40 years later...

Ditto, except 30 years later in my case.

ITER was the next-generation experiment back then. Every time that project's name crops up I wonder how it's going and the answer is always "still building it".

It may depress you to know that ITER was in fact also described in MY degree lectures and that was 81-84!

[paua]

Anyone want to buy a Tokamak from 1980?

[ATG]

sociopath said:

ATG said:

sociopath said:

When I was at university reading Physics, fusion power was only 20 years away.

40 years later...

Ditto, except 30 years later in my case.

ITER was the next-generation experiment back then. Every time that project's name crops up I wonder how it's going and the answer is always "still building it".

It may depress you to know that ITER was in fact also described in MY degree lectures and that was 81-84!

It's like one of my DIY projects. "Another 5 minutes, darling" followed by tumbleweed, the death of another generation of relatives, appreciable change in sea levels, etc

[rxe]

We pretty much have to crack fusion if we are to survive as a species. Sure renewables and batteries, but the embedded energy is horrific, and essentially you're battling the laws of entropy in a really unhelpful way. And they (sometimes) simply don't work - we need something that can provide base load, constant and reliable power.

Fission is all very well, but we've not managed to crack breeders to any appreciable extent, re-processing is a filthy and dangerous business, and it will only need one more reactor catastrophe somewhere in the world to render it unacceptable.

IMO rather than dicking about with "green new deals", they need to be ploughing trillions into fusion. I suspect the challenge would be that even if one of these lab setups does actually yield net positive energy, scaling it to commercial levels will take decades.

[MiseryStreak]

ATG said:

sociopath said:

When I was at university reading Physics, fusion power was only 20 years away.

40 years later...

Ditto, except 30 years later in my case.

ITER was the next-generation experiment back then. Every time that project's name crops up I wonder how it's going and the answer is always "still building it".

I get the ITER newsletter and updates emailed through. It’s interesting watching it being built but my God it’s slow progress. I have confidence that they will succeed in producing net energy but all this money and development time and it’s just a test rig, it’s never going to become a commercial power station. So once the experiment is a success, it’s then starting from scratch to build a commercial reactor. 2050 probably about right.

[Kawasicki]

Do you think it would speed up progress if we increased funding 10, 100 or 1000 fold?

Do you think reliably controlling the plasma is simply a puzzle that will be solved by extremely fast computers? And we might need (or have) a breakthrough in quantum computing first.

[GliderRider]

annodomini2 said:

Until they hit unity or net gain, it's all for naught.

That reads like the the media's approach to scientific experimentation. A fusion experiment which doesn't hit unity may still chip away at the list of 'unknown unknowns' as the odious Mr Rumsfeld described them.

[ATG]

I have no idea. Based on my position of complete ignorance, it's just as likely that there will be an eBay auction in 2100 for a barn find that looks like a half-finished project to convert ITER into a top loader washing machine or a garden water feature.

[annodomini2]

GliderRider said:

annodomini2 said:

Until they hit unity or net gain, it's all for naught.

That reads like the the media's approach to scientific experimentation. A fusion experiment which doesn't hit unity may still chip away at the list of 'unknown unknowns' as the odious Mr Rumsfeld described them.

But until you hit net gain, you haven't got working product.

So creating these components will be needed for a working product, but they're fundamentally useless without that product.

Some of it possibly could have other applications, but we'd have to see.

It's like designing a 747 before we created a working jet engine.

[Kawasicki]

annodomini2 said:

GliderRider said:

annodomini2 said:

Until they hit unity or net gain, it's all for naught.

That reads like the the media's approach to scientific experimentation. A fusion experiment which doesn't hit unity may still chip away at the list of 'unknown unknowns' as the odious Mr Rumsfeld described them.

But until you hit net gain, you haven't got working product.

So creating these components will be needed for a working product, but they're fundamentally useless without that product.

Some of it possibly could have other applications, but we'd have to see.

It's like designing a 747 before we created a working jet engine.

It’s nothing like your 747 analogy.

It’s like designing a jet engine that works for a few seconds longer than the jet engine you currently have. Pretty reasonable and normal technological development.