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.
Fusion has great potential. We will not eliminate our need for petroleum and coal for many, many years.
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.
Lol, the duck and a union facility maintenance guy both believe in something other than Covid!
Lolol
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...
Lol, the duck and a union facility maintenance guy both believe in something other than Covid!
Lolol
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.
When IDshooter and the Duck of death agree on any topic, I am skeptical.
Almost like reading your drivel might reveal some insight...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I see the 'attention ho' has already been on this thread.
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.
Where is the science? A lot of very smart minds have been working on this problem for a very, very long time. So what has changed?
We use hydrocarbons for more than fuel.
They are the foundation of much of our organic chemical industry, being hydro carbons after all.
I’m not that old, but fusion has ALWAYS been “only 30 years away” as long as I can remember. Color me skeptical, but I don’t have a lot of faith in that changing.
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.
Go [bleep] in your hat.
The topic of 0% hydrocarbon came up.
When absolutes are introduced, you immediately have problems
in your argument.
It was logical to point out the many uses of hydrocarbon bases.
Not all, nobody has that much time.
As for 40cc chainsaws?
There is already battery tech to handle that.
And those saws aren't usually operated for long periods. (Except by trimmers)
It's bigger saws where there would be issues.
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.
Go [bleep] in your hat.
The topic of 0% hydrocarbon came up.
When absolutes are introduced, you immediately have problems
in your argument.
It was logical to point out the many uses of hydrocarbon bases.
Not all, nobody has that much time.
As for 40cc chainsaws?
There is already battery tech to handle that.
And those saws aren't usually operated for long periods. (Except by trimmers)
It's bigger saws where there would be issues.
Yes indeed it did, but the mere mention of "hydrocarbon free" makes the greenies cream their jeans every time.
Few of us will still be around to see it. But there may well be a hydrocarbon free future available by 2050.
What has changed is a slow but continuous advance in the science of magnetic containment fields as well as advances in the materials required to withstand the extreme heat of the environment.
There are dozens of small tokomak fusion reactors running in the world right now. But at present scale, they require more energy for containment than they produce.
If they are an energy minus endeavor, what's the point?
Just research and advancement? Or is there an actual
practical use?
You obviously have an interest and some understanding of this.
All I know is practical fusion is the holy grail, and always just out
of reach. Maybe I should have called it the brass ring!
They consume more energy than they produce at present scale.
But the great news is, they have learned how to control the fusion reaction and can harness the energy of the sun.
As mentioned above, the ITER project should be producing 500 net megawatts within 15 years.
Still this does not mean the technology will get past America's political processes, despite the fact that we are a major contributor of the $ making it happen.
Absolutely.
NIMBY.
Econuts.
Oil, gas, coal, interests.
They are going to fight everything.
Plus.
It's hard to trust technology.
Especially when they are playing with the sun's level of power.
Government is corrupt and incompetent,
business...same.
Old technology which is why they are releasing it to the public. Zero point modules are update technology but you can not find one.
What has changed is a slow but continuous advance in the science of magnetic containment fields as well as advances in the materials required to withstand the extreme heat of the environment.
There are dozens of small tokomak fusion reactors running in the world right now. But at present scale, they require more energy for containment than they produce.
Plasma containment was being worked on the 60s.
Just like quantum computers will change computing, the origin of life mystery (true abiogenesis) is just on the edge of being solved.
Blah, blah ... we will see.
The problem in al these cases is NOT that we don't understand the basic science extremely well. We do. There are more fundamental problems.
Hey, you know, like maybe there is a reason that ALL contained fusion reactions in nature occur in immense gravitational fields.
I think the eco-nuts will be the first to embrace fusion. Deuterium is stable and is not radioactive. Tritium is slightly radioactive and does emit beta particles. Most importantly fusion does not entail any Uranium, Thorium, Radium, and especially Plutonium.
There are no hazardous waste products produced to require long time storage.
Tritium is safe enough that it is commonly used for night sights on handguns.
The petro industry will fight the transition to fusion tooth and nail.
And no not the zero point modules they use on the TV show Stargate Atlantus.
We will all be using roll up solar panels next year like the marines. Their maternity flight suits will have a special pocket for it. Biden will mandate time outs for charging in all wars and ask other countries not to fight at night.
Other than that there is some interesting pebble bed reactors that can run breader fuel being worked on at the INL. The ceramic encased fuel pellets are much less likely to melt down.
They developed some pretty advanced tech out there years ago at argon west but Clinton sold the tech to the French and Japanese for almost nothing. Now if we want to use our own tech we have to pay royalties to them.
Bb