Shouldn't we give up on fusion?

[dimreepr]

It takes vast amounts of energy to even get a second or so of actual fusion and how costly that energy is, in terms of cost to the planet.

The money is better spent on something achievable in terms of clean energy, perhaps fission.

I'm not suggesting we entirely give up on the potential benefits, we mothball the project until the energy cost is not on the planet.

 

Edited June 25 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It takes vast amounts of energy to even get a second or so of actual fusion and how costly that energy is, in terms of cost to the planet.

The money is better spent on something achievable in terms of clean energy.

I'm not suggesting we entirely give up on the potential benefits, we mothball the project until the energy cost is not on the planet.

 

Why don't we wait until we know how to do it successfully before doing any more R & D on it?

[exchemist]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why don't we wait until we know how to do it successfully before doing any more R & D on it?

Arf arf. Quite! 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why don't we wait until we know how to do it successfully before doing any more R & D on it?

That's doesn't answer the question, I'm not suggesting we shut down humanities R and D department, just the one that doesn't seem to work, after all this time and mental efforts.

Our time and efforts are better spent on projects that do work, you know the clock is ticking, right?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It takes vast amounts of energy to even get a second or so of actual fusion and how costly that energy is, in terms of cost to the planet.

Define “vast” numerically.

How much energy was expended before the year ~2005 to develop solar power? Should we have stopped because solar was so pitiful at that time? 

[dimreepr]

Just now, swansont said:

Define “vast” numerically.

This is an ethical question, the numbers don't matter if it's not part of the solution.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Our time and efforts are better spent on projects that do work

Projects don’t work, until they do.

R&D projects don’t work, almost by definition, while they are ongoing.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

This is an ethical question, the numbers don't matter if it's not part of the solution.

If you can’t define the threshold, numerically, of what is or isn’t ethical, then this is just bullshitting

[dimreepr]

Just now, swansont said:

Projects don’t work, until they do.

R&D projects don’t work, almost by definition, while they are ongoing.

That's got nothing to do with the question I'm asking; we're never going to forget that fusion is possible, it just takes a lot more gravity than we have avaliable.

I'm suggesting that our resources are better spent, before we run out...

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I'm suggesting that our resources are better spent, before we run out...

Claiming we’re running out means quantifying how much we have, and how much we use. Otherwise this is just empty rhetoric.

Science forum, remember? 

“the burst emitted more energy than the lasers delivered. But it didn’t produce enough energy to run all the lab equipment powering the lasers. It took some 300 million joules of energy from the electrical grid to do the experiment”

https://www.snexplores.org/article/breakthrough-physics-experiment-fusion-energy

300 MW-s of energy might sound like a lot, but 300 MW-s is less than 0.1 MW-hr, and the US alone produced more than 4 billion MW-hr of electricity in 2023.

One part in 40 billion, of just one country’s generation. That’s a tiny drop in the bucket. It’s not “vast”

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If you can’t define the threshold, numerically, of what is or isn’t ethical, then this is just bullshitting

I have, the gravity we have is 1, the gavity we need is a lot more than that, the ethical question I pose is, is there a need to reproduce this on earth? When we can use it for free, now...

And, perhaps, it's twin in a much more efficient way.

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I have, the gravity we have is 1, the gavity we need is a lot more than that, the ethical question I pose is, is there a need to reproduce this on earth? When we can use it for free, now...

And, perhaps, it's twin in a much more efficient way.

What does gravity have to do with anything?

[Janus]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I have, the gravity we have is 1, the gavity we need is a lot more than that, the ethical question I pose is, is there a need to reproduce this on earth? When we can use it for free, now...

And, perhaps, it's twin in a much more efficient way.

While the Sun relies on its gravity to maintain its fusion reaction, this is not the only way it could be done.  Fusion research is based on designs that used other methods, like high powered lasers to compress deutrium to the point that it undergoes fusion.  This has worked to a degree, by initiating the fusion reaction, but the hurtle is getting things to the point where the energy produced is enough to not only power the lasers, but also to have a sufficient excess to make a practical power plant.

[MigL]

This is exactly the kind of thinking that holds science back.
People ( like Dim ) want immediate returns on investment and don't consider the long term returns.
This is common in fusion research, and has already affected other research like NASA's space program.

We know fission is unsustainable because of long term waste residue and raw materials ( both which can even be weaponized ), but fusion has an abundance of raw reactant material, potentially much lower waste residue, and is as common as the Sun in the sky.
Realizing almost unlimited power is an engineering problem, not a theoretical one.
Unfortunately theory comes cheap while engineering costs money.

The 'bean counters' always ruin it for everybody.

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

This is exactly the kind of thinking that holds science back.
People ( like Dim ) want immediate returns on investment and don't consider the long term returns.
This is common in fusion research, and has already affected other research like NASA's space program.

We know fission is unsustainable because of long term waste residue and raw materials ( both which can even be weaponized ), but fusion has an abundance of raw reactant material, potentially much lower waste residue, and is as common as the Sun in the sky.
Realizing almost unlimited power is an engineering problem, not a theoretical one.
Unfortunately theory comes cheap while engineering costs money.

The 'bean counters' always ruin it for everybody.

Yep. While there is an argument to be made in which areas of research to invest, it is dangerous to only focus on low hanging fruits. Perhaps even more problematic is that fundamental research is often not considered very fundable as the goals can be a bit fuzzy. On the other hand, these types of research also have the largest potential to explore completely new areas of science.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

This is exactly the kind of thinking that holds science back.
People ( like Dim ) want immediate returns on investment and don't consider the long term returns.
This is common in fusion research, and has already affected other research like NASA's space program.

We know fission is unsustainable because of long term waste residue and raw materials ( both which can even be weaponized ), but fusion has an abundance of raw reactant material, potentially much lower waste residue, and is as common as the Sun in the sky.
Realizing almost unlimited power is an engineering problem, not a theoretical one.
Unfortunately theory comes cheap while engineering costs money.

The 'bean counters' always ruin it for everybody.

The other error is to think there is a fixed amount of R&D capacity, which can be directed towards one area rather than another.  There are different groups with different research interests and you can’t just stop one of them totally without permanently losing your expertise in that area. So it can't be just turned on and off like a tap. Fusion scientists can’t just switch to working on batteries, at the behest of some government funding agency.

Another point is that the energy transition involves sailing in uncharted waters: we don’t know what surprises and obstacles may appear. It would be foolish to bet everything on one technology at this point. 
 

I’m a bit of a fusion sceptic myself, but I can see the need to keep the door open, in the hope it may one day deliver, even if we are a good 20 years away from that now.

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The other error is to think there is a fixed amount of R&D capacity, which can be directed towards one area rather than another.

To be fair, research funding is typically limited, though different areas work with vastly varying funding envelopes. Fusion research does get a fair bit, because a) it is expensive and b) the practical reward is immense. It is more akin to an applied research/engineering approach than many other initiatives.

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

So it can't be just turned on and off like a tap.

It is not ideal, but you would be surprised how much academic researchers need to pivot to keep their labs open. Research involving large and highly specific infrastructure would have more challenges in that regard, though.

[pzkpfw]

Turning off all Bitcoin related systems would have more effect than halting fusion research.

... and be much better for us all.

[ImplicitDemands]

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why don't we wait until we know how to do it successfully before doing any more R & D on it?

Most of the population haven't a clue about how most of these mechanical systems work much less any fusion apparatus. 

I have an entire process when blueprinting things like this. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, pzkpfw said:

Turning off all Bitcoin related systems would have more effect than halting fusion research.

While BTC mining eats enormous resources, it’s gonna look like a drop in the bucket compared to the power demands coming from AI and the systems on which they run 

[StringJunky]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

While BTC mining eats enormous resources, it’s gonna look like a drop in the bucket compared to the power demands coming from AI and the systems on which they run 

 When 5G gets widely rolled out with its much higher bandwidth, demand will go nuts, I reckon.

[iNow]

55 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 When 5G gets widely rolled out with its much higher bandwidth, demand will go nuts, I reckon.

Interesting thought, though I’m not as familiar with the power supply needed to enable 5G at scale

[pzkpfw]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

While BTC mining eats enormous resources, it’s gonna look like a drop in the bucket compared to the power demands coming from AI and the systems on which they run 

Yep. Watched a Sabine Hossenfelder youtube last week where she claimed this is why AGI is not going to be near what some people say it will.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, pzkpfw said:

this is why AGI is not going to be near what some people say it will.

We tend to find a way and IMO this is a when question not an if question 

[StringJunky]

58 minutes ago, iNow said:

Interesting thought, though I’m not as familiar with the power supply needed to enable 5G at scale

5G is just the 'pipes' of the system, but much wider. I think of it as removing bottlenecks. There will be likely much more data shoved through as it becomes available, which puts further energy demand on the system.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

 When 5G gets widely rolled out with its much higher bandwidth, demand will go nuts, I reckon.

It will be the demand though, not the 5G itself, which is more energy-efficient than 4G

https://www.viavisolutions.com/en-us/resources/learning-center/what-5g-energy-consumption

“Based on data bits per kilowatt, 5G networks are 90% more efficient than their 4G predecessors.”

~140,000 cell towers in the US

https://www.lightreading.com/digital-transformation/us-cell-towers-and-small-cells-by-the-numbers

and one site said 5G towers use of order 10kW, so that’s 1.4 GW, which is not a lot over the whole country