Nuclear fusion: How long until this breakthrough discovery can power your house

[Scott]

NIF's target chamber is where the magic happens -- temperatures of 100 million degrees and pressures extreme enough to compress the target to densities up to 100 times the density of lead are created there.

 

For the first time in history, US scientists at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California successfully produced a nuclear fusion reaction resulting in a net energy gain, a source familiar with the project confirmed to CNN.

The US Department of Energy is expected to officially announce the breakthrough Tuesday.

The result of the experiment would be a massive step in a decadeslong quest to unleash an infinite source of clean energy that could help end dependence on fossil fuels.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/12/us/common-questions-nuclear-fusion-climate/index.html

[internationalism]

I do suspect it will be first used in military technology, later possibly for space travel. 

For civilian use it will come rather in hundred years, that tens of years.

Fossil fuels use is likely to grow for the next 20 years. Crude oil will pick around 2045 with some 45mln barrels per day. 

[placeholder]

To slightly alter a joke that Brazilians tell about their country...

Fusion is the power source of the future and always will be.

[placeholder]

43 minutes ago, internationalism said:

Fossil fuels use is likely to grow for the next 20 years. Crude oil will pick around 2045 with some 45mln barrels per day. 

Making stuff up much?

 

Renewable power’s growth is being turbocharged as countries seek to strengthen energy security

The global energy crisis is driving a sharp acceleration in installations of renewable power, with total capacity growth worldwide set to almost double in the next five years, overtaking coal as the largest source of electricity generation along the way and helping keep alive the possibility of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, the IEA says in a new report.

This massive expected increase is 30% higher than the amount of growth that was forecast just a year ago, highlighting how quickly governments have thrown additional policy weight behind renewables. The report finds that renewables are set to account for over 90% of global electricity expansion over the next five years, overtaking coal to become the largest source of global electricity by early 2025.

https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-turbocharged-as-countries-seek-to-strengthen-energy-security

[Eleftheros]

 

3 hours ago, internationalism said:

I do suspect it will be first used in military technology, later possibly for space travel. 

For civilian use it will come rather in hundred years, that tens of years.

Fossil fuels use is likely to grow for the next 20 years. Crude oil will pick around 2045 with some 45mln barrels per day. 

Quite. No-one with an ounce more sense than a billiard ball would bet their economies on "renewable" energy for many years to come.

 

As for fusion, "an infinite source of clean energy" is the absolute worst nightmare for the radical green activists who would rather see everyone living in yurts powered by whale blubber.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

 

Quite. No-one with an ounce more sense than a billiard ball would bet their economies on "renewable" energy for many years to come.

 

As for fusion, "an infinite source of clean energy" is the absolute worst nightmare for the radical green activists who would rather see everyone living in yurts powered by whale blubber.

The conventional wisdom is not "betting" their economies on renewable energy so much as they know they will have no economies without renewable energy. The calculus is can the human species even survive without drastic action.

[Eleftheros]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

The calculus is can the human species even survive without drastic action.

Yes, it can.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Yes, it can.

Care to produce any credible evidence that most scientists believe that climate change is not an existential threat?

[ballpoint]

3 hours ago, internationalism said:

Fossil fuels use is likely to grow for the next 20 years. Crude oil will pick around 2045 with some 45mln barrels per day.

That would be a 50% drop in production, rather than a pick (sic) - I assume you meant to say peak?  It was 90 M bbl last year, following a drop caused by covid, and crossed the 45 M mark in 1968.

 

 

Global oil production 2021 | Statista

 

 

[placeholder]

Just now, ballpoint said:

That would be a 50% drop in production, rather than a pick (sic) - I assume you meant to say peak?  It was 90 M bbl last year, following a drop caused by covid, and crossed the 45 M mark in 1968.

 

 

Global oil production 2021 | Statista

 

 

I think he just pulled specific numbers out of thin air to give his claims an air of authority and credibility.

[Eleftheros]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Care to produce any credible evidence that most scientists believe that climate change is not an existential threat?

I don't think I've seen any serious scientists say that climate change is an existential threat.

 

The only people I've heard say anything like that are Prince Charles, Bono, Greta Thunberg, people like that, though probably Gwynneth and Leo have said something similar.

[placeholder]

Just now, Eleftheros said:

I don't think I've seen any serious scientists say that climate change is an existential threat.

 

The only people I've heard say anything like that are Prince Charles, Bono, Greta Thunberg, people like that, though probably Gwynneth and Leo have said something similar.

You seem remarkably keen as to what climate scientists don't say but utterly oblivious to what they do say.

[KhunLA]

If the fossil fuel conglomerates allow it to progress as they have the other alternative solution ...

... not in ours, our children's or their grandchildren's lifetime ????

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I don't think I've seen any serious scientists say that climate change is an existential threat.

 

The only people I've heard say anything like that are Prince Charles, Bono, Greta Thunberg, people like that, though probably Gwynneth and Leo have said something similar.

Maybe you haven't been looking hard enough

 

‘Dangerously underexplored’: Experts warn climate change could lead to extinction of humanity

The world needs to prepare for humanity’s extinction because of climate change, according to a shocking new study. Scientists say global warming could become “catastrophic” for humanity if temperatures rise by even more than they are predicted to, or if the rising temperatures set off an unpredictable chain of events in nature.

The team, led by Cambridge University academics, says people should prepare for horror scenarios ranging from the loss of 10 percent of the world’s population to the end of all human life on Earth.

https://studyfinds.org/climate-change-extinction-humanity/

[ballpoint]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I think he just pulled specific numbers out of thin air to give his claims an air of authority and credibility.

Production of just 45 M bbl in 2045 would be quite a positive step, if it were to be true.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Maybe you haven't been looking hard enough

 

‘Dangerously underexplored’: Experts warn climate change could lead to extinction of humanity

The world needs to prepare for humanity’s extinction because of climate change, according to a shocking new study. Scientists say global warming could become “catastrophic” for humanity if temperatures rise by even more than they are predicted to, or if the rising temperatures set off an unpredictable chain of events in nature.

The team, led by Cambridge University academics, says people should prepare for horror scenarios ranging from the loss of 10 percent of the world’s population to the end of all human life on Earth.

https://studyfinds.org/climate-change-extinction-humanity/

The wingnuts didn't read it the first time, what makes you think they will this time?

 

Stupid is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result ????

[Eleftheros]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Maybe you haven't been looking hard enough

 

‘Dangerously underexplored’: Experts warn climate change could lead to extinction of humanity

The world needs to prepare for humanity’s extinction because of climate change, according to a shocking new study. Scientists say global warming could become “catastrophic” for humanity if temperatures rise by even more than they are predicted to, or if the rising temperatures set off an unpredictable chain of events in nature.

The team, led by Cambridge University academics, says people should prepare for horror scenarios ranging from the loss of 10 percent of the world’s population to the end of all human life on Earth.

https://studyfinds.org/climate-change-extinction-humanity/

Yes, I saw that, not hard to find with a Google search, was it? 

 

I would say that the most notable feature of this paper is the extraordinary length of the chain of occurrences that have to happen to make this possible.

 

If the temperature goes up by 3C, and if that in turn causes the Amazon to go up in flames, and if there is a loss of stratocumulus clouds, and if we don't improve political stability and if there is an infectious disease pandemic and if the Greenland ice sheet collapses and if and if and if ....

 

Terrifying ourselves with shadowy goblins, and focusing on improbable worst-case scenarios may generate headlines, but it is not a very good strategy for solving the multiple problems that we do have. Leave that sort of stuff to Prince Charles and Bono.

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Yes, I saw that, not hard to find with a Google search, was it? 

 

I would say that the most notable feature of this paper is the extraordinary length of the chain of occurrences that have to happen to make this possible.

 

If the temperature goes up by 3C, and if that in turn causes the Amazon to go up in flames, and if there is a loss of stratocumulus clouds, and if we don't improve political stability and if there is an infectious disease pandemic and if the Greenland ice sheet collapses and if and if and if ....

 

Terrifying ourselves with shadowy goblins, and focusing on improbable worst-case scenarios may generate headlines, but it is not a very good strategy for solving the multiple problems that we do have. Leave that sort of stuff to Prince Charles and Bono.

First off, you said you hadn't seen this kind of thing. Now you say you have? And as scientists point out, the consequences will be even graver than they already are if temperatures continue to rise. In fact, as has been repeatedlyl pointed out, climatologists have been very conservative in their consensus predictions of the damage caused by warming. Reality repeatedly shows that the consequences are worse than what has been predicted

[internationalism]

I have quoted from memory 45mln barrels per day (from an article I have read just before pandemic), so 3 years ago and made a mistake, sorry. That projection was expecting continuous growth in crude oil.

 

That is projection from this year, based on APEC report. 

"Globally, oil demand is projected to increase from almost 97 million barrels a day (mb/d) in 2021 to around 110 mb/d in 2045, the outlook said"

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/OGN_402594.html

 

Only very few countries, the richest and most economically advanced, are pushing for renewable energy. Namely germany are pioneers - at expense of some e200bln for the next few years. Yet, at the same time, they are forced to import NPG from the USA and investing tens of bln in those facilities.

 

 

[Henryford]

It won't be allowed to happen until the oil runs out - 1-200 years.

[Eleftheros]

12 minutes ago, internationalism said:

I have quoted from memory 45mln barrels per day (from an article I have read just before pandemic), so 3 years ago and made a mistake, sorry. That projection was expecting continuous growth in crude oil.

 

That is projection from this year, based on APEC report. 

"Globally, oil demand is projected to increase from almost 97 million barrels a day (mb/d) in 2021 to around 110 mb/d in 2045, the outlook said"

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/OGN_402594.html

 

Only very few countries, the richest and most economically advanced, are pushing for renewable energy. Namely germany are pioneers - at expense of some e200bln for the next few years. Yet, at the same time, they are forced to import NPG from the USA and investing tens of bln in those facilities.

That sounds about right. It is only the deranged activists who think that we can wave a magic wand and suddenly switch to "renewable" energy.

 

As for fusion power, if at long last one day it does prove to be viable, I expect those same activists will have found some excuse to claim that it is "dangerous", or "discriminatory" and do their utmost to hamper it in every way possible.

[placeholder]

25 minutes ago, internationalism said:

I have quoted from memory 45mln barrels per day (from an article I have read just before pandemic), so 3 years ago and made a mistake, sorry. That projection was expecting continuous growth in crude oil.

 

That is projection from this year, based on APEC report. 

"Globally, oil demand is projected to increase from almost 97 million barrels a day (mb/d) in 2021 to around 110 mb/d in 2045, the outlook said"

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/OGN_402594.html

 

Actually, the report was from OPEC not APEC. And what do you expect an OPEC report to claim?

[placeholder]

26 minutes ago, internationalism said:

Only very few countries, the richest and most economically advanced, are pushing for renewable energy. Namely germany are pioneers - at expense of some e200bln for the next few years. Yet, at the same time, they are forced to import NPG from the USA and investing tens of bln in those facilities.

 

 

Nonsense. What don't you understand about the fact that it's  cheaper to build solar and wind power plants than it is to run just run coal power plants. 

Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

 

Faster Than You Think: Renewable Energy and Developing Countries
Annual Review of Resource Economics

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093759

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That sounds about right. It is only the deranged activists who think that we can wave a magic wand and suddenly switch to "renewable" energy.

 

Please share with us the naes  deranged activists who believe this? Are they in positions of power? 

[ozimoron]

26 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That sounds about right. It is only the deranged activists who think that we can wave a magic wand and suddenly switch to "renewable" energy.

 

As for fusion power, if at long last one day it does prove to be viable, I expect those same activists will have found some excuse to claim that it is "dangerous", or "discriminatory" and do their utmost to hamper it in every way possible.

Nobody is saying that. The problem is the number of people saying there's nothing to see here despite scientists trying to sound the alarm.

[AndyFoxy]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Making stuff up much?

 

Renewable power’s growth is being turbocharged as countries seek to strengthen energy security

The global energy crisis is driving a sharp acceleration in installations of renewable power, with total capacity growth worldwide set to almost double in the next five years, overtaking coal as the largest source of electricity generation along the way and helping keep alive the possibility of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, the IEA says in a new report.

This massive expected increase is 30% higher than the amount of growth that was forecast just a year ago, highlighting how quickly governments have thrown additional policy weight behind renewables. The report finds that renewables are set to account for over 90% of global electricity expansion over the next five years, overtaking coal to become the largest source of global electricity by early 2025.

https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-turbocharged-as-countries-seek-to-strengthen-energy-security

Peak oil has been reached

[Eleftheros]

50 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please share with us the naes  deranged activists who believe this? Are they in positions of power? 

Well, I'm not sure whether they're in power or not, but the UK Government, with its imbecile Net Zero strategy and ruinous Climate Change Act, is a good example of what I'm talking about.

 

It is a masterpiece of ill-thought-out drivel, seemingly created by people who missed their calling to write instruction manuals for ice-cube trays. Read the whole thing if you dare - personally I would rather read the whole Harry Potter series in Latvian - but it notably includes the idea of creating "hundreds of thousands of  well-paid jobs" in the green energy business.

 

A sensible energy policy tries to minimize the number of people involved in energy production. The fewer people you employ for a given output, the more efficient your industry becomes, and all the other people can go and do something more useful.

 

We have gradually moved in this direction for hundreds of years - first we had everybody spending all day cutting down wood and collecting dung, then we employed an small army of people to dig coal, then a handful of people to operate oil rigs, and finally some guy sitting in a nuclear power station trying not to twiddle the knobs.

 

And now, Net Zero wants to take us back to the era where huge numbers of people do nothing more than create energy. Madness.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

Well, I'm not sure whether they're in power or not, but the UK Government, with its imbecile Net Zero strategy and ruinous Climate Change Act, is a good example of what I'm talking about.

 

It is a masterpiece of ill-thought-out drivel, seemingly created by people who missed their calling to write instruction manuals for ice-cube trays. Read the whole thing if you dare - personally I would rather read the whole Harry Potter series in Latvian - but it notably includes the idea of creating "hundreds of thousands of  well-paid jobs" in the green energy business.

 

A sensible energy policy tries to minimize the number of people involved in energy production. The fewer people you employ for a given output, the more efficient your industry becomes, and all the other people can go and do something more useful.

 

We have gradually moved in this direction for hundreds of years - first we had everybody spending all day cutting down wood and collecting dung, then we employed an small army of people to dig coal, then a handful of people to operate oil rigs, and finally some guy sitting in a nuclear power station trying not to twiddle the knobs.

 

And now, Net Zero wants to take us back to the era where huge numbers of people do nothing more than create energy. Madness.

 

How ridiculous can a comment be? How does a new industry grow without new workers? The robot revolution hasn't taken place yet. When the petroleum industry began to displace coal, would it have been a valid criticism to complain about the increased number of workers necessitated by the growth of the petroleum industry? 

 

And by the way, there were  hundreds of thousand of workers in the petroleum industry in the UK when it was at its peak:

"In 2014, when investment levels in the UK Continental Shelf were at record levels, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), in partnership with industry, commissioned EY to undertake a study of the UK upstream oil and gas workforce. This was published under the title “Fuelling the next generation”. At that point it was estimated that industry supported some 375,000 jobs1 , 1 in every 80 UK jobs. 90% of these jobs were in the supply chain providing essential services to the sector, as well as providing services internationally from a UK base"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/535039/bis-16-266-oil-and-gas-workforce-plan.pdf

 

As for this:

Maybe you think rational discussion consists of the tired tropes of an insult comic. You've got nothing.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

 

Quite. No-one with an ounce more sense than a billiard ball would bet their economies on "renewable" energy for many years to come.

 

As for fusion, "an infinite source of clean energy" is the absolute worst nightmare for the radical green activists who would rather see everyone living in yurts powered by whale blubber.

The more realistic version of the OP is the new "small" nuclear reactors that have been developed with proven technology. Built in a factory and transported to wherever needed. Apparently safe too.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

We have gradually moved in this direction for hundreds of years - first we had everybody spending all day cutting down wood and collecting dung, then we employed an small army of people to dig coal, then a handful of people to operate oil rigs, and finally some guy sitting in a nuclear power station trying not to twiddle the knobs.

 

And now, Net Zero wants to take us back to the era where huge numbers of people do nothing more than create energy. Madness.

Actually not mad at all. The age of AI/robotics is already on us, and millions will be made redundant.

The more that can be employed on something the better, or would one prefer millions with no purpose in life?