Merged How Close is power from Nuclear Fusion

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You may right, but... which part is not entirely convincing?

He doesn't present any proof that it is impossible. Just that it would be very difficult. We already know that.

Arthur C Clarke:
If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

vide:

10 impossibilities conquered by science

 

[Mikemcc]

Basically it's hard to imagine that it can ever be an economical source of power. Assume that something like ITER actually works as intended (and ITER is never intended to actually be connected to a power generator). How would you actually use it to generate power? How do you get the energy from the hot plasma in the tokamak into a boiler to boil water for steam, for example? Even assuming a success, i.e., they achieve exactly what they plan to achieve, the next step is not clear to me. It's for research only, not something that will create usable electricity.

If I was a person that laid bets I would be looking at the Sperical Tokamaks, they are 'cheap' enough that there a number of univerisities and private companies working on them and their performance is continually improving:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spher...sion,complete with a large hole in the middle.

 

[BrettM]

Arthur C Clarke:
If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

vide:

10 impossibilities conquered by science

You can add another item to this list: Sailing downwind faster than the wind. That topic has been covered extensively by members of our very own forum. Here's the link to the thread: Down wind faster than the wind.

Many eminent academics said it was impossible, and suffered the indignity of being proven wrong.

But if an elderly, distinguished scientist told me that over unity free energy generators were impossible, I would believe him.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You can add another item to this list: Sailing downwind faster than the wind. That topic has been covered extensively by members of our very own forum. Here's the link to the thread: Down wind faster than the wind.

Many eminent academics said it was impossible, and suffered the indignity of being proven wrong.

But if an elderly, distinguished scientist told me that over unity free energy generators were impossible, I would believe him.

Clarke, being the good scientist he was, did say, ". . . he is very probably wrong."

Exception proving the rule and all that.

 

[Puppycow]

He doesn't present any proof that it is impossible. Just that it would be very difficult. We already know that.

I agree that it is possible, but the more important question to me is whether it can be economical or practical. A solution that makes electricity 100 times more expensive is not a viable solution.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I agree that it is possible, but the more important question to me is whether it can be economical or practical. A solution that makes electricity 100 times more expensive is not a viable solution.

Exactly. Even nuclear fission is teetering on being uneconomic compared to other 'clean' power sources, and that's a mature technology which could be improved much more easily.

If Thunderf00t had insisted that creating fusion in the lab was impossible then his video wouldn't be entirely convincing - but that's not what what he said. As he points out, fission is a piece of cake compared to fusion. For the scale we want a practical fusion power plant so close to impossible that it might as well be.

Arthur C Clarke:
If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Isaac Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's First Law: "When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervour and emotion – the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right."

I prefer Asimov's Corollary because it is what we see more of. Bold claims about some effect discovered in the lab that will 'change everything' with no evidence of it having any practical use. Great for getting funding, not so great for getting solutions to pressing needs.

10 impossibilities conquered by science...

10. Teleportation

This is a word with a long and rather dubious history. It was coined by the paranormalist writer Charles Fort in his book Lo! and was subsequently seized on by legions of science fiction writers; most famously as the “transporter” in Star Trek.

That's the best modern example they can find? And not even a single 'elderly but distinguished scientist' declaring it impossible.

Once again, this isn't about theoretical possibilities, but what is technologically viable. Scientists are constantly coming up with ideas that turn out to be impractable to implement. I bet for every '10 impossibilities conquered by science' I could find 100 that went nowhere.

What's worse are the impossibilities that are touted as being conquered when what was actually achieved was something else. Everybody's talking about this 'breakthrough' as if it's the beginning of a new technology for power generation, when that has nothing to do with it. Their real goal was simply to create a miniature fusion bomb in the lab. If anything comes out this experiment it will probably be a weapon, not a power plant.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Exactly. Even nuclear fission is teetering on being uneconomic compared to other 'clean' power sources, and that's a mature technology which could be improved much more easily.

If Thunderf00t had insisted that creating fusion in the lab was impossible then his video wouldn't be entirely convincing - but that's not what what he said. As he points out, fission is a piece of cake compared to fusion. For the scale we want a practical fusion power plant so close to impossible that it might as well be.


Isaac Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's First Law: "When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervour and emotion – the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right."

I prefer Asimov's Corollary because it is what we see more of. Bold claims about some effect discovered in the lab that will 'change everything' with no evidence of it having any practical use. Great for getting funding, not so great for getting solutions to pressing needs.

That's the best modern example they can find? And not even a single 'elderly but distinguished scientist' declaring it impossible.

Once again, this isn't about theoretical possibilities, but what is technologically viable. Scientists are constantly coming up with ideas that turn out to be impractable to implement. I bet for every '10 impossibilities conquered by science' I could find 100 that went nowhere.

What's worse are the impossibilities that are touted as being conquered when what was actually achieved was something else. Everybody's talking about this 'breakthrough' as if it's the beginning of a new technology for power generation, when that has nothing to do with it. Their real goal was simply to create a miniature fusion bomb in the lab. If anything comes out this experiment it will probably be a weapon, not a power plant.

OK. OK. Forget dueling Famous Science Fiction authors.

I have been waiting for a breakthrough for at least sixty years. All the failures and half-way gains do add up to very little. But there is nothing to say that controlled fusion is impossible. Evidence to date indicates whether there ever will be a breakthrough is a bit moot. Power output more so.

For the results to be a weapon would require even more "progress" than development of some large lumpy containment facility.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

For the results to be a weapon would require even more "progress" than development of some large lumpy containment facility.

No, you don't understand. Those enormous lasers they had to develop to zap that tiny pellet of Deuterium? That's the real technology they are working on.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

No, you don't understand. Those enormous lasers they had to develop to zap that tiny pellet of Deuterium? That's the real technology they are working on.

That does seem a rather obscure way of doing laser development. Why would anyone do the development by mounting a number of them to focus on one tiny spot? Just blast away at simulated intended targets.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That does seem a rather obscure way of doing laser development. Why would anyone do the development by mounting a number of them to focus on one tiny spot? Just blast away at simulated intended targets.

That's what they want you to think!

Remember Iran telling us that all those centrifuges were for peaceful purposes? Or Hitler's pre-war order of 'commercial' airliners that turned out to be bombers? Mark my words - the next time you hear about this project it will be sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And then there's this:

Fusion power key to Earth's survival, says Bill Nye in exclusive interview

Them there scientist fellers better hurry up. I don't think we can afford to wait (another) thirty years.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How Close is power from Nuclear Fusion? ~8 light minutes.

 

[theprestige]

How Close is power from Nuclear Fusion? ~8 light minutes.

: duck :

Imagine being a year late to the world's most obvious joke. "Duck" indeed.

 

[shemp]

Add another 10-20 years to the clock:

Fusion Breakthrough Hits Hurdles as Five Experiments Fail

(Bloomberg) -- The US government lab that made a long-awaited breakthrough in fusion energy late last year has run five similar experiments since then without being able to replicate the results.

The milestone came in December as the the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco reported achieving the first fusion reaction that produced more energy than it took to create — a threshold known as ignition. The achievement opened the possibility of power plants one day running on nuclear fusion, the same energy source as the sun.

Since then, the lab has run five similar experiments, shooting the world’s most powerful laser at small diamond capsules filled with hydrogen, said Lawrence Livermore Director Kim Budil. But so far, ignition hasn’t been achieved again.

The quality of the carefully made capsules wasn’t quite as high as the one used in December, and three of the five experiments used less laser power than before, she said. Although, “the hope is always there,” Budil said, the lack of ignition wasn’t a surprise.

Yep, always excuses, not results. Once again, if only there were a huge source of fusion that sends enormous quantities of energy towards Earth. If only.

 

[arthwollipot]

Mmm, yeah, that's a setback. But if it wasn't a surprise, it shouldn't really affect the timeline as it would have been accounted for, right?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Microsoft just signed a deal with the fusion power company Helion to provide power from 2028 onwards.

 

[wea]

Microsoft just signed a deal with the fusion power company Helion to provide power from 2028 onwards.

Is there a penalty for non-compliance (i.e. power isn't delivered)?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Microsoft just signed a deal with the fusion power company Helion to provide power from 2028 onwards.

You beet me to it. I was just logging on to post this news.

I rather like the one from Fortune.

Microsoft agrees to buy power from a Sam Altman-backed nuclear fusion startup that’s yet to produce any electricity

 

[theprestige]

You beet me to it. I was just logging on to post this news.

I rather like the one from Fortune.

Microsoft agrees to buy power from a Sam Altman-backed nuclear fusion startup that’s yet to produce any electricity

[Microsoft] announced Wednesday that it had agreed to purchase electricity from Helion Energy, a nuclear fusion startup, by 2028. The startup promised to provide at least 50 megawatts for Microsoft within a year, or pay a financial penalty.
[. . .]

One of Helion’s largest backers is Sam Altman, who is also the CEO of OpenAI, the developer of viral chatbot sensation ChatGPT. Altman has invested $375 million into the nuclear fusion startup, and told the Wall Street Journal that he visits the company at least once a month.
Microsoft earlier this year agreed to invest $10 billion into OpenAI, and will partner with the ChatGPT developer to integrate A.I. services across its range of programs and services.

https://archive.is/x2bwW#selection-455.0-459.220​

Nothing in the article about Microsoft putting up any quid without a pro quo.

Article seems to insinuate - and I'm inclined to this interpretation - that this is more about Microsoft bolstering their relationship with Sam Altman and OpenAI, by hyping one of Altman's other pet projects, than it is about the imminence of fusion power.

The part that contradicts this interpretation is Helion's agreement to pay a penalty if it doesn't deliver. But I imagine at that level of play there's all kinds of moves one can make, that look like you're paying a penalty when actually you're receiving a windfall. Altman may be thinking that the boost to his returns on OpenAI will vastly outweigh the nominal fine he'll have to pay to Microsoft via Helion.

 

[Myriad]

My guess is that the language used to describe Helion Energy (as a "nuclear fusion startup") has no bearing whatsoever on Helion's ability to provide electric power to Microsoft in 2028. Anybody with the capital can broker electricity on the grid.