How much of this is really going to happen?

[CORed]

I predict that by 2050 the world will be drowning in craft beers, mostly IPAs.

I was going to cheer until you mentioned IPA's. I'm more of a red ale, porter, stout and bock guy, with a good German style lager occasionally for variety and, in any event, I like a good balance of malt to hop, not the watery, overhopped light beer that is called IPA.

 

[CORed]

Nuclear fusion and Ice free arctic seem mutually exclusive. Once nuclear fusion becomes viable, we would have a virtually unlimited energy supply forever. There would be no need to generate a single atom greenhouse gases (alternatively, we would have the energy to suck out the excess greenhouse gasses from our atmosphere and convert them to raw fuel).

If hydrogen fusion becomes viable, we might actually need to burn a bit of fossil fuel to fend off the next ice age. In any event, producing some kind of liquid fuel for internal combustion cars should be no problem.

 

[crescent]

My theory is that fusion will still be expensive, too expensive to be widely implemented for a long time. I am guessing that the first few generations of reactors that can generate power will be big monstrous complicated things that only put out a few percent more energy than they consume and require frequent downtime for preventative maintenance. They would not need much fuel and create little to no waste, but fuel and waste management are only two of the many costs.

Ice-free arctic. Might happen in a few decades (have not seen the video), but would have an element of gradualism to it. It could start of as ice-free for just a few days around the fall equinox, even then with some iced over areas adjacent to some land masses. Enough that someone at ground level will be able to get photos of ice as far as the eye can see and keep the deniers functional.

After the first ice-free event, it could be a few years before another would occur, but become gradually more frequent. I can't imaging anytime soon when the arctic would not be mostly iced over in winter, that will continue for a long time. Ice-free periods in the fall and summer are certainly coming though, its only a matter of time, a few decades at the most.

 

[psionl0]

My theory is that fusion will still be expensive, too expensive to be widely implemented for a long time.

Yes, nuclear fusion is a holy grail that resists time lines.

My point was that it is not logical to lump that and an ice free arctic in the same set of predictions (though they might coexist temporarily).

 

[Myriad]

I'm a big fan of DE-STAR. No idea if anyone will ever actually deploy it, but the technology and science seems sound, and it has uses beyond just asteroid defence.

You can just tell that whoever came up with that acronym actually wanted it to be Directed Energy Absolutely Terrifying High-orbital System for Targeting of Annoying Rebels.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, nuclear fusion is a holy grail that resists time lines.

My point was that it is not logical to lump that and an ice free arctic in the same set of predictions (though they might coexist temporarily).

But if crescent is right we could both have nuclear fusion and continue to burn fossil fuels. Look at fission reactors: the cost of fuel/kWh is basically free, but we haven't stopped burning coal just because we have nuclear power.

There's also the variable of implementation time to consider. Let's say incredibly cheap fusion power is developed in 2040. It will still take time to build out all the fusion plants to make up for the whole world's energy production.

So I don't think the two predictions are mutually exclusive.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's worth noting that there have been some recent advances in nuclear fusion that have increased the probability of having an over-unity reactor soon considerably. It may actually be moving from the "40 years away and always will be" state to the "five to ten years" state.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Nuclear fusion and Ice free arctic seem mutually exclusive. Once nuclear fusion becomes viable, we would have a virtually unlimited energy supply forever. There would be no need to generate a single atom greenhouse gases (alternatively, we would have the energy to suck out the excess greenhouse gasses from our atmosphere and convert them to raw fuel).

I suppose I agree if you mean a year-round ice-free Arctic. We could easily see the first melt-out next year, though, if everything aligned. But year-round loss is decades away (even if only 2). That's my guess.