Fusion is not 20 years in the future.It’s 50 years in the past–and we missed it

20 points by zero_kool 4 years ago | 14 comments
  • ALittleLight 4 years ago
    "The deuterium in a single cubic meter of seawater contains the as much energy as nearly 1,400 barrels of crude oil - enough to supply the civilizaton's energy needs for hundreds of millions of years - until long after the Sun itself has flamed out."

    What does that sentence mean? It seems like a claim that the energy of 1,400 barrels of crude oil is enough to sustain civilization for a long time, but that seems implausible to me. Also, off by an order of magnitude on the timeline for the sun burning out.

    Whenever I read stuff like this now I start to get paranoid that this is written by GPT-3.

    • i-am-curious 4 years ago
      That's 1 cubic meter. We have a lot more seawater?
      • alquemist 4 years ago
        There is a lot of water out there.

        * Total ocean volume: 1.3e18 cubic meters, 1.8e21 oil barrels equivalent [1]

        * Current oil consumption: 35,442,913,090 barrels per year [2]

        * Oil share of total energy consumption: 34% [3]

        * Number of years of reserves at current consumption levels: 17,577,561,935 years.

        Assumptions:

        * Consumption levels are flat, definitely false.

        * Energy cost of retrieval: 0, definitely false.

        * Retrieval rate: 100%, definitely false, as the concentration dilutes over time.

        [1] https://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html

        [2] https://www.worldometers.info/oil

        [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

        • 4 years ago
          • ch_123 4 years ago
            The US alone consumes tens of millions of barrels a day according to the US govt[1] so this claim of "1,400 barrels of crude oil - enough to supply the civilizaton's energy needs for hundreds of millions of years" is very far off the mark.

            [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6

            • feanaro 4 years ago
              I think GPT-3 would've probably written it more accurately.
              • 4 years ago
              • joeberon 4 years ago
                I can’t possibly believe that this would not already have been pounced on by both scientists and major governments if it were as promising as made out here, sorry.
                • mathw 4 years ago
                  Likewise. Also, it says there has been little progress, but there are numerous test reactors providing loads of data, ITER is being built, there's a lot of knowledge about how to do this now. It's still tremendously difficult and probably tremendously underfunded, but I'm not sure the claim that "many" have concluded it to be impossible is remotely founded.

                  But I do have a friend who works at the UK's fusion research centre, obviously she believes in what they're doing!

                • vbezhenar 4 years ago
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor : Fusors are not considered a viable concept for large-scale energy production by scientists.
                  • C4stor 4 years ago
                    Who is to say we need "large-scale" energy production though, except the companies selling energy ?
                    • tlb 4 years ago
                      They're also not suitable for small-scale energy production. You have to put in more energy (to accelerate the ions towards the center) than you can get out (as heat).
                      • sneak 4 years ago
                        Seems like a perfect project for SoftBank.
                      • mathw 4 years ago
                        Distributed grids with lots of generation points have their advantages but are really hard to manage. Somehow I doubt this is going to go to the point of having a small fusion reactor in every building, so we have to have some kind of grid. Large-scale generation is something we could plug into the grid we already have, which is a distinct infrastructural advantage - if it turns up before we have solar panels on every roof, anyway.
                        • C4stor 4 years ago
                          That's true, but I don't think there's a need to be plugged in the grid to enjoy energy generation. There are already a ton of things embarking their own energy generators (every single vehicle to start with) which aren't plugged in any grid. Batteries are also ubiquitous.

                          So there is definitely a need for small scale to very small scale energy generators, and dismissing a technology because it's unsuitable for large-scale generation doesn't seem wise to me.

                        • valuearb 4 years ago
                          Well, you also need to generate more power then the fusion device consumes.