48 seconds. I predict a glut of helium. balloons for everyone

  • Gigan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’d love to see an operating fusion reactor in my lifetime. Real sci-fi technology

    • virku@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Currently reading news and communicating with people around the world from the privacy of my toilet using my hand terminal. It can also understand what I am saying and excecute my spoken commands (to some extent at least). That’s some Sci fi shit right there. Pun intended

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Even if it’s not commercially available in the next 10 years or so, an actual sustained fusion reaction would change the world overnight. It’s crazy how close we’re getting…

    • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I am quite positive I’ll see reliable, sustained fusion reactions in my lifetime.

      I’m also pretty positive it’ll be useless as an energy source. Still could be useful for other things though.

      • wahming@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Why? Converting heat into electricity is the easy part, it requires no new tech

        • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I don’t think we’ll get to the point where the energy that comes out will be higher enough than the energy put in to justify its use compared to other energy sources.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I don’t think we’ll get to the point where the energy that comes out will be higher enough than the energy put in to justify its use compared to other energy sources.

            They also used to say Man will never fly.

            Technically, just give it time. Politically, that’s a whole other matter.

            • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              They also used to say Man will never fly.

              Sure… I’m not saying fusion will never happen (it already does of course) or even that it’ll never be net positive for energy.

              Just that, for energy it’s looking to be worse than most other options.

              So I’m not saying man will never fly, I’m saying something closer to flying cars won’t happen. It’s not that we couldn’t do it, just that the alternatives are better.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                just that the alternatives are better.

                I’m not sure how you can judge that, against something that doesn’t exist yet.

                • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I’m not sure how you can judge that, against something that doesn’t exist yet.

                  Simply based on past and current trends. The advancement curve on fusion would need to really step it up and if we say that it can, then we also need to accept the same is possible for the alternatives which means fusion still lags behind.

                  Fusion would need to be extra special somehow, and from what’s happened so far, it seems less special than the rest if anything.

                  Naturally this is all speculative of course, and being wrong on this is great either way as one way or another we will continue to get better at getting energy.

                  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    I’m not sure how you can judge that, against something that doesn’t exist yet.

                    Simply based on past and current trends.

                    Past and Current is not Future though.

                    The advancement curve on fusion would need to really step it up and if we say that it can, then we also need to accept the same is possible for the alternatives which means fusion still lags behind.

                    That logically doesn’t make sense though, because it’s assuming the same amount of “step it up” (AKA ‘progress’), which is not guaranteed. Fusion realized can far outstrip consumables, “winning the race” as it were, even if it takes longer to do so.

                    Your logic is also not taking to consideration how much reward you get for the effort. Even if one takes more effort to do than the other, if the results are much greater rewards, then it is better overall to do the greater rewards option.

                    Fusion would need to be extra special somehow, and from what’s happened so far, it seems less special than the rest if anything.

                    Well, it hasn’t been invented yet. I think we should probably all wait until it actually has, before passing judgment on it.

                    Also, it has the promise of doing that, in the same way that’s flying had the promise of a greater form of travel than horseback or cars, especially when long distances were concerned (AKA greater rewards).

                    Overall, I sense a general agenda from you, based on your comments, that you wish to forgo the investment in research and development for fusion, and instead concentrate on renewals like a solar, etc.

                    If so, I would again just reiterate how one has much greater potential rewards than the other, as renewables won’t get us to 100% of what we need (at least until the time comes when we figure out how to collect the solar energy from orbit in huge quantities and beam it down to Earth).

                    Also, it doesn’t have to be an either/or, it can be a both. Your comments would better serve Humanity better if you didn’t discourage fusion development, but instead promote both, as they both have positives that would be beneficial to Humanity.

                    Personally I would love to see both developed rigorously in parallel, a “pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time” type of philosophy.

                    Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. :p

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      really hoping ITER pulls it off or they make a new breakthrough design.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Probably going to happen. Proxima Fusion is eyeing early 2030s for a commercial prototype and those aren’t venture capital techbros, it’s a Max Planck institute spin-out. About as hard science as you can get. Wendelstein 7X has shown that the approach works, the thing exceeded all expectations (that is: It behaves exactly as computer models said it would) and scales up without nasty surprises (much unlike tokamaks) so they’re done with the tech fundamentals now it’s about engineering something cost competitive, think requirements such as replacement parts the reactor will regularly need not exceeding electricity market prices.