Fusion will be cracked "within 30 years"

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 27 May 2009, 12:36

A 1cm cube would weigh .13 tonnes i.e. 130kg

A 1mm cube would weigh 130 grammes.

I assume that it would be very hard material.

Material of that density would also be useful for:

- thermal stores
- radiation shielding
- bullets
- armour plate
- energy storage flywheels
- super strong, sharp blades

Ultra thin wires, foils and powders of this stuff would have all sorts of weird applications.

Post by **clv101** » 27 May 2009, 13:22

I was at a Michio Kaku lecture yesterday, the physicist and futurist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

Quite unimpressed really, after spending an hour talking about invisibility, transportation, AI, faster than light travel and type 0, I, II and III civilisations he got to the Q&A. First question was about limits, resources, population, environmental etc preventing us moving from type 0. His answer was laser confined fusion and solar hydrogen. Nanotech grey goo threat was dismissed as centuries away since self replication is REALLY HARD. He dismissed the technological singularity threat by saying we have no clue what to do about Moore's law breaking down by 2020 and quantum computers aren't able to do more than 3x5=15 on five atoms so aren't going to get there.

He seemed inconsistently optimistic in some areas, pessimistic in others. His key message seemed to be much of past science fiction could actually be science fact. I left thinking much of what he said was still very much fiction.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 27 May 2009, 13:24

What relevance was artificial insemination?

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 27 May 2009, 13:50

Given the revolutionary nature claimed for this 'ultra dense deuterium' there has been a stunning silence on the internet about it in the last couple of weeks.

A couple of physics based threads basically saying 'what the hell is this?'. Nothing more.

Forget talk of making bulk quantities of this stuff. I expect they are talking about less than a thousand atoms.

(matter contains about 600000000000000000000000 molecules per mole, or about 2 grams in the case of deuterium)

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 May 2009, 20:45

Cabrone wrote:as this is the one technology that could pull us out of our environmental\energy situation you'd think that the PTB would be throwing absolutely everything at it. If they did we could have it up and running way, way quicker than 30 years.

The speed at which problems are solved is not always directly proportional to the amount of money spent searching for solutions.

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 27 May 2009, 21:48

Cabrone wrote:Then again, looking at the calibre of the scientific illiterates in charge I'm not pinning my hopes on it.

Which "scientific illiterates" did you have in mind Cabrone? Creating a large-scale stable fusion reaction is an incredibly challenging scientific/engineering endeavour, and requires enormous levels of funding with no guarantee of success. The fact that we always seem to be 30-50 years away from achieving it is not through want of trying. The costs are huge, so these projects need transnational funding over many years, which is always going to be problematic.

Cabrone · Post by **Cabrone** » 28 May 2009, 08:57

The speed at which problems are solved is not always directly proportional to the amount of money spent searching for solutions.

Yes but if you don't make much of an effort then the chances are much higher that not much will happen, hence it always being 30\50 years away.

We didn't put enough effort into this technology - not compared to what we needed to do. An Apollo style project was needed.

It frustrates me that they are willing to spend far more on damaging wars and bailing out reckless gamblers than on something that could have been a game changing technology.

Anyway, it's all academic now.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 28 May 2009, 12:16

caspian wrote:
Cabrone wrote:Then again, looking at the calibre of the scientific illiterates in charge I'm not pinning my hopes on it.
Which "scientific illiterates" did you have in mind Cabrone? Creating a large-scale stable fusion reaction is an incredibly challenging scientific/engineering endeavour, and requires enormous levels of funding with no guarantee of success. The fact that we always seem to be 30-50 years away from achieving it is not through want of trying. The costs are huge, so these projects need transnational funding over many years, which is always going to be problematic.

I would suggest that any project started in around 1954 which is STILL years from completion is in trouble.

This long timescale also allows corruption, laziness etc to become very established.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 May 2009, 14:01

Cabrone wrote:We didn't put enough effort into this technology

Perhaps because it has always been doubtful that it will ever work. The shame is that we didn't put enough effort into the technologies that we are confident will work - solar, wind, tidal, geothermal... and efficiency.

Andy_K · Post by **Andy_K** » 28 May 2009, 15:07

Cabrone wrote: Totally agree, as this is the one technology that could pull us out of our environmental\energy situation you'd think that the PTB would be throwing absolutely everything at it. If they did we could have it up and running way, way quicker than 30 years.

Then again, looking at the calibre of the scientific illiterates in charge I'm not pinning my hopes on it.

Interestingly enough, the last Prime Minister we've had with a science degree was Thatcher...

ziggy12345 · Post by **ziggy12345** » 28 May 2009, 17:23

biffvernon wrote:
Cabrone wrote:We didn't put enough effort into this technology
Perhaps because it has always been doubtful that it will ever work. The shame is that we didn't put enough effort into the technologies that we are confident will work - solar, wind, tidal, geothermal... and efficiency.

Who is confident these will work? Almost all the information I have been reading are doubfull these will provide anything like the amount of energy we need. I am sure they will make a contribution but the bulk of our power needs will have to be something else.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 28 May 2009, 18:00

ziggy12345 wrote:
biffvernon wrote:
Cabrone wrote:We didn't put enough effort into this technology
Perhaps because it has always been doubtful that it will ever work. The shame is that we didn't put enough effort into the technologies that we are confident will work - solar, wind, tidal, geothermal... and efficiency.
Who is confident these will work? Almost all the information I have been reading are doubfull these will provide anything like the amount of energy we need. I am sure they will make a contribution but the bulk of our power needs will have to be something else.

They work and are proven, particularly efficiency. Passive houses are a good example.

We just have to get society to accept that the levels of energy they produce is it.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 May 2009, 18:19

ziggy12345 wrote:doubfull these will provide anything like the amount of energy we need.

You meant 'want' rather than 'need'?

Cycloloco · Post by **Cycloloco** » 29 May 2009, 01:24

Vortex wrote:I would suggest that any project started in around 1954 which is STILL years from completion is in trouble.

This long timescale also allows corruption, laziness etc to become very established.

Too pessimistic. This has turned out to be more complicated than anyone thought and it has slowly become a single big international project to make D/T fusion work. Different countries are combining to build new plants of increasing size. That combination reduces the chance of laziness or corruption.

Cabrone · Post by **Cabrone** » 29 May 2009, 08:56

biffvernon wrote:
Cabrone wrote:We didn't put enough effort into this technology
Perhaps because it has always been doubtful that it will ever work. The shame is that we didn't put enough effort into the technologies that we are confident will work - solar, wind, tidal, geothermal... and efficiency.

I totally agree about renewables - we need as much as possible but we also need to invest heavily in fusion research. This is potentially a game changing technology that not only could power this civilisation but might possibly provide the raw power to help cope with climate change. I really don't see it as an either\or situation.

My understanding is that the physicists are talking about EROEIs of around 40 at the moment and with 1g of matter being enough to produce a fusion bomb there's a heck of a lot of energy to be tapped.

What a shame the illiterates in charge don't see it.