For decades, government scientists have toiled away trying to make nuclear fusion work. Will commercial companies sprint to the finish?

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    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…

      • SoggyBread@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • QuinceDaPence@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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’.

          • davidgro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

  • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    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@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the one where areas with a billion inhabitants become unsuitable for human habitation in 20 years, and the resulting mass migration takes down civilization as we know it.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Efficiency will get better, and population will likely start to decline. But I don’t know if more demand from people coming out of substance farming will be more or less than the less usage from efficiency and population decline.

  • BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • profdc9@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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