Fusion breakthrough and Kardashev Level 1

[Kai lord]

I hope this breakthrough will at the very least slow down climate change, you know, buy us time so that we can fix the planet which some say is in a big mess.

There is already a non official roadmap in place to solve all that: It goes something like this:

Fourth industrial revolution ====> Fifth industrial revolution =====> Hydrogen age

We are now in the fourth industrial revolution which is labeled as internet or information revolution where smart device play a major role in our life. The next step forwards will be energy revolution , also the fifth industrial revolution, in which renewables and nuclear related energy like Thorium, fifth generation fission reactor and nuclear fusion will start to become commercially viable and play a major role.

Technically when humans reach hydrogen age, our major environment problems along with other issues like food supply, etc, will be resolved and new problem will emerge. Although its still unclear when we will reach that age, with this breakthrough, the obstacles have become more of an engineering issue than a scientific one. The insurmountable barrier has been broken.

Here's the characteristics of a hydrogen age:

Fusion and fission reactors are common and with globally-linked solar, wind and ocean wave power, energy is cheap. This solves the problem of the Earth running out of fossil fuels which have become very expensive. Hydrogen and biofuels replace expensive oil. Space-based solar power joins the global energy network via wireless power transmission and beamed energy. Hydrogen-based fission, fusion, solar power and renewables largely replace fossil fuels.
Advances in longevity science slow the aging process so that the dominant species is able to live 200+ years.
Universal translator works for all home planet languages. A possible world language is adopted.
Neural and brain-computer interfaces are bi-directional. The images and experiences generated by these devices are almost indistinguishable from reality, and they’re unique to each user because they depend on the structure of the brain.
Cloning of some species, and full genetic mapping of any species.
Disruption of world economies with the adoption of a universal cryptocurrency not controlled by governments. A possible world economy arises.
Local cultures will co-exist with a global culture. Intellectual capitalism replaces commodity capitalism. Continental governments are formed, funding world bodies to combat common threats such as epidemics and other extinction events, terrorism and dictatorships.

[Virgo]

In short, the discovery is not useful in its present form and it will take such a long time to scale up that it will not contribute anything useful to the world's power system, because we will either move to renewables before then or cook the planet.



Kim

I agree. Our duty is to preserve this knowledge for future civilizations somehow. I will leave that up to the scientists and engineers who have spare underground vaults and bunkers inside mountains.

Civilization is a heat engine, until they perfect this kind of technology or something similar. So Timothy Garrett wasn't completely right.

Renewables alone will never be enough as a primary source of energy. Even if we could make them so, they would not be implemented globally as fossil fuels would remain cheap. Even in theory, if a civilization could design itself in such a way that it used only renewable energies, it would never design itself that way in the first place because it wouldn't see the problems with not doing so. It wouldn't even know about the green house effect. It would not develop in such a way that it used only renewable energies naturally.

The path forward is clear. We have to successfully preserve the knowledge that we have and we need to limit anthropogenic climate change as much as we can so the impact is not worse case scenario. We need some people to survive after all. That won't happen unless we do a lot better.

I will stop here.

Virgo

[Kim O'Hara]

The only part I disagree with at all is, "Renewables alone will never be enough as a primary source of energy," but I do have two completely unrelated disagreements with it.
(1) I can see no theoretical reason why renewables can't supply at least 95% of our energy needs. What we do is electrify everything that now uses fossil fuels, ramping up our renewables and storage as we do so. Sunshine is effectively an infinite resource, and so is wind - and so is tidal energy and geothermal. Storage is not really a problem either - there are pumped hydro opportunities all over the place, or we can store it by stacking huge weights and getting that gravitational energy back, or we can store it as heat in molten salt, etc.
(2) When the crunch comes, we must adjust our energy consumption to fit our carbon budget. If we don't get in first, nature will do it for us by knocking us all the way back to pre-industrial levels of technology - windmills (if we're lucky), horse power and our own muscle power ... all of which is renewable.


Kim

[Virgo]

The only part I disagree with at all is, "Renewables alone will never be enough as a primary source of energy," but I do have two completely unrelated disagreements with it.
(1) I can see no theoretical reason why renewables can't supply at least 95% of our energy needs. What we do is electrify everything that now uses fossil fuels, ramping up our renewables and storage as we do so. Sunshine is effectively an infinite resource, and so is wind - and so is tidal energy and geothermal. Storage is not really a problem either - there are pumped hydro opportunities all over the place, or we can store it by stacking huge weights and getting that gravitational energy back, or we can store it as heat in molten salt, etc.

In theory yes, but there are just too many variables involved when it comes to all of this actually being implemented.

We need to get to that 5'th industrial revolution. The problem is our green house problem.

And obviously, we don't know if that is going to look exactly like we think it might look like now.

Virgo

[Inedible]

The point of the breakthrough was that 2 megajoules of laser power resulted in 3 megajoules of output. So more energy out than in. Until you consider the 400 megajoules used to produce the 2 megajoules of laser power. Or the time, effort, and cost of making a gold pellet with deuterium and tritium. So it isn't really being honest to talk about producing more power than went into the system.

[Kai lord]

The point of the breakthrough was that 2 megajoules of laser power resulted in 3 megajoules of output. So more energy out than in. Until you consider the 400 megajoules used to produce the 2 megajoules of laser power. Or the time, effort, and cost of making a gold pellet with deuterium and tritium. So it isn't really being honest to talk about producing more power than went into the system.

You are talking about the engineering breakeven, Qe value, before that, we also have the extrapolated breakeven, etc. This breakthrough is about the Q value becoming more than 1 for the first time.

And like I said in the previous post, this has become more of an engineering issue now not a seemingly scientific impossibility like before.

[Kim O'Hara]

The only part I disagree with at all is, "Renewables alone will never be enough as a primary source of energy," but I do have two completely unrelated disagreements with it.
(1) I can see no theoretical reason why renewables can't supply at least 95% of our energy needs. What we do is electrify everything that now uses fossil fuels, ramping up our renewables and storage as we do so. Sunshine is effectively an infinite resource, and so is wind - and so is tidal energy and geothermal. Storage is not really a problem either - there are pumped hydro opportunities all over the place, or we can store it by stacking huge weights and getting that gravitational energy back, or we can store it as heat in molten salt, etc.

In theory yes, but there are just too many variables involved when it comes to all of this actually being implemented. ...

Huh? Not really. Just politics and vested interests, and a bit of laziness.
(Yes, of course I know "just" understates the size of those issues. But just think how fast people can change their minds when they are faced with imminent death.)
There are really very few scientific or technical problems. There is still scope for improvements in all sorts of areas like battery technology but with what we know now and are using now we can go most of the way to where we want to be. If you can point out a sector of our (US or Aussie or global) economy that you believe we don't know how to fix, please go ahead.


Kim

[Kim O'Hara]

The point of the breakthrough was that 2 megajoules of laser power resulted in 3 megajoules of output. So more energy out than in. Until you consider the 400 megajoules used to produce the 2 megajoules of laser power. Or the time, effort, and cost of making a gold pellet with deuterium and tritium. So it isn't really being honest to talk about producing more power than went into the system.

You are talking about the engineering breakeven, Qe value, before that, we also have the extrapolated breakeven, etc. This breakthrough is about the Q value becoming more than 1 for the first time.

breakthrough not breakthrough, as I said, because in practical terms it is as useful as tailfeathers on a camel.


Kim

[Kai lord]

The point of the breakthrough was that 2 megajoules of laser power resulted in 3 megajoules of output. So more energy out than in. Until you consider the 400 megajoules used to produce the 2 megajoules of laser power. Or the time, effort, and cost of making a gold pellet with deuterium and tritium. So it isn't really being honest to talk about producing more power than went into the system.

You are talking about the engineering breakeven, Qe value, before that, we also have the extrapolated breakeven, etc. This breakthrough is about the Q value becoming more than 1 for the first time.

breakthrough not breakthrough, as I said, because in practical terms it is as useful as tailfeathers on a camel.

Meaningless to you perhaps, not meaningless to thousands of scientists and engineers who spent years on a dream and finally seeing credible results, proving once and for all that its not just a dream.

Instead of going back to the days of making jokes about how fusion is always 30 years away, now scientists are seeing this as an opportunity to go down in history books

Since it has now become an engineering problem instead of a scientific one, optimizating the system and mass scaling is only a matter of time . Expect more breakthrough

[Kim O'Hara]

You are talking about the engineering breakeven, Qe value, before that, we also have the extrapolated breakeven, etc. This breakthrough is about the Q value becoming more than 1 for the first time.

breakthrough not breakthrough, as I said, because in practical terms it is as useful as tailfeathers on a camel.

Meaningless to you perhaps, not meaningless to thousands of scientists and engineers who spent years on a dream and finally seeing credible results, proving once and for all that its not just a dream.

Instead of going back to the days of making jokes about how fusion is always 30 years away, now scientists are seeing this as an opportunity to go down in history books

Since it has now become an engineering problem instead of a scientific one, optimizating the system and mass scaling is only a matter of time . Expect more breakthrough

That only makes sense on a planet where Business As Usual for the next thirty-some years is probable.


Kim

[kirtu]

breakthrough not breakthrough, as I said, because in practical terms it is as useful as tailfeathers on a camel.

Meaningless to you perhaps, not meaningless to thousands of scientists and engineers who spent years on a dream and finally seeing credible results, proving once and for all that its not just a dream.

Instead of going back to the days of making jokes about how fusion is always 30 years away, now scientists are seeing this as an opportunity to go down in history books

Since it has now become an engineering problem instead of a scientific one, optimizating the system and mass scaling is only a matter of time . Expect more breakthrough

That only makes sense on a planet where Business As Usual for the next thirty-some years is probable.


Kim

Kim - perhaps you haven't been paying attention - the planet is dominated by psychopathic rakshasas who mostly fought their way to the top grouped into ruthless rakshasa countries - USA, China, Russia and even largely yours, Australia. All of these nations explicitly *REFUSED* to do anything significant about climate change even in the face of direct evidence.

The planet is not dominated by rational countries like Iceland for example.

Secondly we have grossly exceeded the limits to climate mitigation so our ability to do anything meaningful in a short period of time (30 - 50 years) is essentially null.

The second commercial fusion reactor will be dedicated to refreezing the Arctic Ocean.

[Queequeg]

Meaningless to you perhaps, not meaningless to thousands of scientists and engineers who spent years on a dream and finally seeing credible results, proving once and for all that its not just a dream.

Instead of going back to the days of making jokes about how fusion is always 30 years away, now scientists are seeing this as an opportunity to go down in history books

I find that scientists in general are not so romantic. Maybe they'll allow themselves a moment of joy, but in general, their whole profession is about being grounded and realistic. Other than quasi scientists like Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson whose job it is to get the general public hyped up and lobby for money, the hard scientists actually engaged in the work are more reserved.

[Virgo]

In theory yes, but there are just too many variables involved when it comes to all of this actually being implemented. ...

Huh? Not really. Just politics and vested interests, and a bit of laziness.
(Yes, of course I know "just" understates the size of those issues. But just think how fast people can change their minds when they are faced with imminent death.)

Not too fast, as we can see. It's the old frog in the pot of slowly boiling water.

There are really very few scientific or technical problems. There is still scope for improvements in all sorts of areas like battery technology but with what we know now and are using now we can go most of the way to where we want to be. If you can point out a sector of our (US or Aussie or global) economy that you believe we don't know how to fix, please go ahead.

I am not sure what you mean by the last part.



Virgo

[Kim O'Hara]

In theory yes, but there are just too many variables involved when it comes to all of this actually being implemented. ...

Huh? Not really. Just politics and vested interests, and a bit of laziness.
(Yes, of course I know "just" understates the size of those issues. But just think how fast people can change their minds when they are faced with imminent death.)

Not too fast, as we can see. It's the old frog in the pot of slowly boiling water.

Sure. That has been our problem for years. But the key word was "imminent". We're really bad at noticing threats that are not immediate, but now we're getting some really strong reminders via extreme weather events.

... If you can point out a sector of our (US or Aussie or global) economy that you believe we don't know how to fix, please go ahead.

I am not sure what you mean by the last part.



Virgo

Is there anywhere you think fossil fuels can't be replaced by renewables? If so, what or where?


Kim

[Virgo]

Is there anywhere you think fossil fuels can't be replaced by renewables? If so, what or where?


Kim

It's not that I think they can't be (and in some cases more technological advancements would be needed, in others it would not be needed). It is that I think they won't be.

One problem is that the cost of insulating ourselves from the affects of climate change will be so grand. This takes priority over switching over infrastructure for practical reasons. This alone can break the back of our economies. We also have to deal with the disruption of massive crop failures, the problems come from mass migration of peoples fleeing unlivable lands, complete economic and societal instability leading to widespread warfare without doubt. Do you really think that the priority will be switching everything over to renewables?

What we know of as life now may be a distant memory in a few decades.



Virgo

[Kim O'Hara]

Is there anywhere you think fossil fuels can't be replaced by renewables? If so, what or where?


Kim

It's not that I think they can't be (and in some cases more technological advancements would be needed, in others it would not be needed). It is that I think they won't be.

One problem is that the cost of insulating ourselves from the affects of climate change will be so grand. This takes priority over switching over infrastructure for practical reasons. This alone can break the back of our economies. We also have to deal with the disruption of massive crop failures, the problems come from mass migration of peoples fleeing unlivable lands, complete economic and societal instability leading to widespread warfare without doubt. Do you really think that the priority will be switching everything over to renewables?

Umm, not quite.
What I think is that we're in a race against time, to make our society more sustainable as fast as possible. If we lose the race, we will be in the situation you describe, using all our resources to merely survive the collapse.
If we win it, the crunch won't be as severe. And winning it starts with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, radically, right away. We only have a few years - the experts are talking about having only 5 - 10 years to make reductions of 30 - 50% (which is huge) or we've lost. This graph is now 5 years old...

carbon crunch Figueres et al 2017-b.jpg (65.86 KiB) Viewed 441 times

What we know of as life now may be a distant memory in a few decades.



Virgo

Yes. Future generations may look back at 1945 - 2025 as the lost Golden Age.
They may also be deeply pissed off with the baby-boomers who enjoyed all its advantages and left all the mess for them to deal with.


Kim

[Queequeg]

I don't think we will be throwing much money at holding the ocean back once people realize its a hopeless proposition. Cities will be abandoned en masse and people will retreat to higher ground. In the developed world this will look like a reverse gentrification with poor people being the last to leave. (See Detroit, or the Bronx in the 70s) In poor countries it will be more haphazard for sure.

I am willing to bet a fair amount that the switch to renewables will happen more quickly than many of us presently anticipate. The Biden legislation is about to set off a massive chain reaction in the US economy that will coincide with the reordering that is happening with the reversing of globalization. Its going to look muddled for a couple years, but come 2027 or so, things are going to be roaring as the renewable industry becomes another beast on the scale of the fossil fuel industries. We will be complaining about the dirty heavy industry and human rights abuses behind renewables.

The ultimate perpetual motion machine, greed, has been introduced into the renewables industry. Those of us who care are going to be wringing out hands at how ugly this all is and how our utopian vision for a clean energy world has turned into another nightmare.

There Will Be Blood.

[Inedible]

Is there anywhere you think fossil fuels can't be replaced by renewables? If so, what or where?

I'd like to know how we can make synthetic drugs without fossil fuels. Or artificial colors. Artificial fibers for clothes and tires. Lubricants. Road paving supplies. The kinds of things we use oil for, but not by burning it.

[Anders]

A lot of gnashing of teeth in various directions on this.

It doesn't matter if none of our generations will see the application of the this. Fusion energy is the definitive solution to the energy problem. When we get to there, it is an utter game changer.

Some things are worth investing more than a century into developing.

[Kim O'Hara]

Is there anywhere you think fossil fuels can't be replaced by renewables? If so, what or where?

I'd like to know how we can make synthetic drugs without fossil fuels. Or artificial colors. Artificial fibers for clothes and tires. Lubricants. Road paving supplies. The kinds of things we use oil for, but not by burning it.

OK - but out of order -
The kinds of things we use oil for, but not by burning it.
Plastic is the big one, so big that oil companies are pivoting to it as their new main market for when we don't use oil for transport and power generation. But we know that life without plastic is possible, because plastics are only a century old.
Artificial fibers for clothes and tires
Bamboo is a good source of fibre. Remember all those 'environmentally friendly' 'bamboo' fabrics?
And the fibres are basically nylon made from a plant-fibre base. We can use them for tires.
Lubricants and synthetic drugs and probably artificial colors
Plant-based and animal-based oils and fats. Again, look at what we used before mineral oils were known.

That leaves just Road paving supplies
Currently the heavier fractions of crude oil. Nothing comes to mind and I won't spoil my perfect record by actually doing any research.
On the other hand, we don't need to worry if this is all that we can't find substitutes for because we will have cut our usage by better than 95%.

And on the other other hand, we were talking about replacing fossil fuels by renewables, and none of the uses you mentioned are fuels.


Kim