Nuclear fusion – what is it worth?

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 18 Jul 2010, 04:48

The Guardian - 16/07/10

Experiments in fusion power have at last started to prove its viability. It would be foolish not to continue funding research.

Article continues ...

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 18 Jul 2010, 06:34

The article is written by Steven Cowley, chief executive officer of United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and head of EURATOM/CCFE fusion association.

Unfortunately, it is hard to make fusion work. Indeed, after more than 60 years of fusion research, no device has yet made more energy than it consumes.

Unfortunately, Iter's construction expenses have risen from about €5bn to over €13bn and the cost overruns have prompted some to question why chasing nuclear fusion is a priority.

Me included. Even if possible, nuclear fusion power could not be implemented before societal collapse.

Post by **clv101** » 18 Jul 2010, 09:12

foodimista wrote:Me included. Even if possible, nuclear fusion power could not be implemented before societal collapse.

You can't say that with any more certainty than the scientist saying fusion will be working in 20 years or whatever. No one know the timescale or structure of societal collapse.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 18 Jul 2010, 09:16

Without an energy subsidy, there will be a collapse. There is no new cheap energy store to be found and nowhere to expand the population into.

Post by **clv101** » 18 Jul 2010, 09:42

If only the world was was such a simple, linear, single variable problem! It's just not. The US, just for example, use some 22% of the world's oil in 22mpg ave. vehicles (maybe a bit less when HGVs are included). Over a decade or so, they could double that to 44mpg, could car share, could stop driving 80-mile daily commutes in F-150 SUVs etc... This is a new source of energy.

The key is adaptation. If one assumes NOTHING changes as our energy system changes around us, you'd have a reasonable chance of making a prediction. However, we know the system is non-linear, it is dynamic, there are tipping points, collapses do happen. Identifying where/where they occur though is pretty much impossible.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 18 Jul 2010, 10:28

clv101 wrote:
foodimista wrote:Me included. Even if possible, nuclear fusion power could not be implemented before societal collapse.
You can't say that with any more certainty than the scientist saying fusion will be working in 20 years or whatever. No one know the timescale or structure of societal collapse.

You can form a good guess. Societal collapse will happen when oil imports become unaffordable, the stock market crashes, jobs disappear, people start getting very hungry, and government can no longer afford to provide the services that keep society running.

I guess that this will happen around 2012 or 2013 - when the oil production downslope starts in earnest, oil prices can't be kept stable even in a world of declining economic activity, and the reality of dwindling oil supplies cuts short all investment.

Chances of getting fusion working by then = 0.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 18 Jul 2010, 13:38

Well, to my mind, funding of nuclear fusion will be forced to cease due to high cost and more immediate priorities like pacifying the populace or invading other countries for their wealth*. Whether that happens before or during collapse is immaterial.

* A note to the fag-end farmer here, to pre-empt the usual knee-jerk reaction - that does not mean I support invasion of other countries, nor that I assume that the UK would be doing the invading.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 18 Jul 2010, 14:38

[quote="foodimista"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 18 Jul 2010, 14:40

[quote="Ludwig"]

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 08 Aug 2010, 13:18

I guess that this will happen around 2012 or 2013 - when the oil production downslope starts in earnest, oil prices can't be kept stable even in a world of declining economic activity, and the reality of dwindling oil supplies cuts short all investment.

You are very brave making a prediction like this Ludwig!

You are on the hook for this one - lets revisit in 24 - 36 months

Im still waiting for Iran to be invaded, the dollar to collapse, US natural gas production to collapse, the death of 6 billion from swine/bird flu, collapse of Gwhahar, and so on and so forth!

Snowhope must be practically buried in baked beans I should think (although sooner or later he will be right and he can have the last laugh at my expense!)

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 08 Aug 2010, 19:32

[quote="Totally_Baffled"]

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 08 Aug 2010, 23:14

Euratom is ridiculous. I think the technical term is Anachronistic actually.

It was founded, with perfectly good intentions, to develop "peaceful" use for nukes. It came into being at the same time as the ISTC (Iron and steel trades) and one other trade agreement, the latter 2 eventually becoming the EEC, but Euratom was deliberately left as it was because nuclear was so unpopular by then that just mentioning it would have completely stymied what were already complicated and delicate negotiations.

I can see why Euratom was founded, and I can see it must have been a good idea at a time, but history moves on, and we now know nuclear fission is not the panacea ("too cheap to meter") it was once thought, and nuclear fusion, 20 years away when I was a kid, is still 20 years away now I have a daughter and son of my own.

The UK can, if it wishes, leave Euratom without compromising our position within the EU (Euratom isn't accountable to the Euro Parliament, or to anyone else as far as I can tell). Germany were seriously contemplating doing this, with their Green coalition.

meemoe_uk · Post by **meemoe_uk** » 30 Dec 2010, 17:55

Hot nuclear fusion is near hopeless. It's not worth the time and energy being put into it.
In fact for me it stands out as one of the most clear examples of the energy cartel preventing useful research into energy sources.

The situation is :
The worlds got a bunch of clever, well motivated , capable, principled energy scientists.
The world energy cartel doesn't want loads of new energy markets popping up here there and everywhere competing with their established base.
- What to do?

- Monopolise all these scientists into working their whole lives at a hopeless idea.
- The hot fusion industry is too vast + cumbersome for anyone to steer it. So if scientists want a steady paycheck, they just gotta go along with the hopeless flow. Complaining about it won't change anything.
- Hot fusion takes up all the high tech energy source grants but returns nothing, while wind power is a poor enough energy source that it can be deployed without it threatening the big energy industry.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 30 Dec 2010, 19:22

meemoe_uk wrote:Hot nuclear fusion is near hopeless.

That's the first sensible thing you've said here

Now, about the Cartel. Haven't they ever heard of, erm, Tent Hygene?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 30 Dec 2010, 19:43

RenewableCandy wrote:
meemoe_uk wrote:Hot nuclear fusion is near hopeless.
That's the first sensible thing you've said here

+1