Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Commercially Viable Fusion Energy: actually < 30 years away

Lots of interesting new developments in the field. Several private institutions are developing fusion technology.

The most promising is the ITER project (initiated 1985) built in France and operated by a multinational team. This promises to be the first example of a fusion reactor which will actually produce more energy than it requires to operate the containment magnets. It is planned to be fully operational by 2035 and should produce 500 Mwatts.

Safe fuel, the oceans are full of it. Yes you have to make the Tritium, but that will become part of the reactor process. And zero emissions. Zero toxic byproducts. No meltdowns. No explosions. If containment fails, the fuel Hydrogen gets cold and the reaction simply stops.

More advanced and more efficient containment technologies are in the pipeline.

Few of us will still be around to see it. But there may well be a hydrocarbon free future available by 2050.

All the sudden the Middle East will become as irrelevant as it was before Henry Ford built the model T.

My first psuedo-scientific "paper" was written on this subject back in 8'th grade Science class 1969. Keeping up on the developments has been an interest of mine since. I am excited to see the research finally beginning to bear fruit.

Fusion has great potential. We will not eliminate our need for petroleum and coal for many, many years.

Trump could get it done in 5!

Hydro carbon free?
Really?

Wife and I drove team, were committed to 1100 miles a day.
In 55 mph truck, mileage is higher with today's speeds and HP.

Will batteries allow that, day after day?

How about running a 90+cc chainsaw miles into the woods for 8 hours.
Cords or batteries? Fuel cell?

It a ways into the future, sure.
But I don't see 0 hydrocarbons that soon.

Hydrocarbon free?
Plastics, rubber, paints, solvents....?

Much reduced? Yep, likely.
Free? Probably never.

I have a real hard time imagining battery technology will ever duplicate the energy density of diesel, gas, or even coal. Flammable fuels will be the power of choice for many, many decades to come for aircraft.

Flammable fuels could include Hydrogen. But that opens its own can of worms with transport and storage. Anyone remember the Hindenburg?

Controlled fusion would solve the energy problems of the world. I worked with an ER doc whose previous career involved doing plasma flow studies at Los Alamos. He said the problem was containing the unreal high temperatures for sustained periods of time necessary to sustain the reaction.

Just an example of where the future could go: Stihl, DeWalt, and Ryobi all build some very impressive battery operated chain saws for use around the yard. Battery operated lawn mowers?

Who saw that coming ten years ago?

Give me a 400 HP V8 and a fifty gallon fuel tank! But battery powered ground transport will be the future reality.

There is ZERO doubt we will have more varied, and extremely advanced energy tech in my lifetime (probably not some of your lifetimes, sorry), and my kid's lifetimes, for sure. The proof is in the science that is already in development.

Fusion (and safer, hyper-local fission) is on the horizon, and is a no doubter.

Dozens of start-ups are already building prototype batteries composed of lab-created synthetics and nuclear waste that (they say) can last thousands of years - without a recharge.

There will be a place for petroleum based fuels for a while - they pack a lot of potential energy - but there will continue to be many cheaper, more efficient options as time goes on.

^^^^^^Douche

Lol, the duck and a union facility maintenance guy both believe in something other than Covid!

Lolol

Takeaway: Backroads has ZERO knowledge of the topic and has no educated opinion to add to the discussion. CHECK.

You don’t pass the character test duck.

When IDshooter and the Duck of death agree on any topic, I am skeptical.
Almost like reading your drivel might reveal some insight...

Who is this "Union Facility maintenence guy" you reference?

This would be a welcome development but we will always need petrol products for chemical applications, products, lubricants, and agriculture. Still, another reliable and efficient method to generate power would be great.

What's frustrating is that at the moment we have untapped geothermal resources in the greater Yellowstone area that could power much of the nation cheaply and very clean. From eastern Idaho, Yellowstone, and into Wyoming there's plenty of potential in geothermal power. Sadly we don't take the initiative to exploit it and use it to our advantage. It's an nearly endless resource and it's ignored. Imagine having clean non polluting generating stations in the countryside making power for pennies on the dollar.

You are posting on this forum. So you are obviously not illiterate.


Just as obviously, you are uneducated and ignorant by choice.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Oh wait, that would mean I live to 100!

Cooamundo baby!

More likely it will take 100 more years for commercial scale reactors due to roadblocks put up by vested interests and the unwillingness of politicians to give up their cash.

I agree. Nothing better than free steam from the bowels of the Earth. But imagine getting a bill through Congress to develop Yellowstone Park.

And yes, petrol is the preferred base for much organic chemistry, plastics included. If it is true that transportation currently consumes 71% of world petroleum production, then removing transportation, (or even just the majority of transportation) from the petrol market would drive the price to about ten bucks a barrel. Perhaps Texas could probably supply all domestic needs.

You are 100% right that there is trepidation for this tech in the US. But you are wrong it will be 100 years out in the US...

This tech is ~5-10 years out from moderate scale testing in 2nd and 3rd world countries, where the need is real, and the technology will be proven for the world to see. We (the US) is certainly less than 50 years out, probably more like 25.

Hint: check out where top tech VC's are funneling their cash. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

And for the dolts here who are saying we will always need petrol for consumer goods:

Yea, no chit, sherlocks.

I am not arguing the need for petrol for plastics, rubber, etc. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

The post is about energy for power grids and large scale needs. Not your 40cc chainsaw.