5 ms·

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

20 points by zero_kool 6y ago

ALittleLight 6y 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 6y ago
  That's 1 cubic meter. We have a lot more seawater?
- feanaro 6y ago
  I think GPT-3 would've probably written it more accurately.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alquemist 6y 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 https://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html [2] https://www.worldometers.info/oil https://www.worldometers.info/oil [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
- ch_123 6y 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 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6
joeberon 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor : Fusors are not considered a viable concept for large-scale energy production by scientists.
- C4stor 6y ago
  Who is to say we need "large-scale" energy production though, except the companies selling energy ?
  - mathw 6y 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 6y 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.
  - tlb 6y 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 6y ago
      Seems like a perfect project for SoftBank.

20 points by zero_kool 6y 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 6y ago
That's 1 cubic meter. We have a lot more seawater?
feanaro 6y ago
I think GPT-3 would've probably written it more accurately.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
alquemist 6y 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 https://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html [2] https://www.worldometers.info/oil https://www.worldometers.info/oil [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
ch_123 6y 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 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6

joeberon 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor : Fusors are not considered a viable concept for large-scale energy production by scientists.

C4stor 6y ago
Who is to say we need "large-scale" energy production though, except the companies selling energy ?
- mathw 6y 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 6y 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.
- tlb 6y 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 6y ago
    Seems like a perfect project for SoftBank.