Bitcoin Forum

Scientists in the US have moved closer to achieving completely clean energy by achieving the first net energy gain in an inertial confinement fusion reaction. The experiment was carried out using a small granule of hydrogen plasma and the world's largest laser, writes the Financial Times, citing three interlocutors who got acquainted with the preliminary results of the work of scientists.

At the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, they managed to reproduce the process of nuclear fusion (the same process that occurs on the Sun) and get about 2.5 megajoules of energy, which is 120% higher than the energy used in lasers - 2.1 megajoules. Two FT sources noted that more energy was received than planned, causing damage to diagnostic equipment and making it difficult to analyze the results, a breakthrough already widely discussed by scientists.

https://www.ft.com/content/4b6f0fab-66ef-4e33-adec-cfc345589dc7


Your opinion ? Forecasts? Are we witnessing an unexpected end to the era of hydrocarbon fuels? Should all oil / coal / gas producing countries prepare for a "new poor life"?

Those countries will probably invest in the machinary for doing fusion instead imo - or just do like they did with green energy and make it hard to get and expensive...

I think it was only a matter of time until fusion replaces everything for energy production, but a long time. The experiments here are 5-40 years away from becoming mainstream depending on how much is invested in making them that way.

Oil and gas may become like any other legacy technology there is too, you're certainly not powering a car off fusion for quite some time - and those would definitely be expensive. Is one of the main sources of hydrogen currently not from hydrocarbons which could have been used for fuel?

I absolutely agree that this will not become a mass product tomorrow, and most likely it will take more than one year, or maybe 10 years, for industrial solutions. But this is a transition, a qualitative transition to a completely new level of energy. In a sense, almost free and accessible.
It's hard to say how equipment manufacturers will behave. But I am sure that after everything that the world has experienced in 2022, after "hydrocarbon economic terrorism", they will try to remove hydrocarbons, or rather dependence on them, as soon as possible!

I've read the news earlier today and they are great!
However, it is said that a realistic time frame for implementing this for real use is somewhere at 15-30 years.
Even more, the price of such a facility would be enormous.

So.. we'll need a little more patience...
Still, it's a great step forward, I won't deny that. We're finally on the right track.

For a long time I have thought that this is the real future of clean energy, the rest of the solutions to replace carbon-based fuels while important are nothing but a bridge to allow us to develop nuclear fusion as they have too many inconveniences and cannot give a constant supply of energy, and even if we are still at the experimentation stage this is a technology that will eventually become real and will generate so much excess energy that a revolution will come after it is fully developed.

I think fusion energy could be the wrong path to pursue. It could be fundamentally flawed in terms of the containment and insulation necessary to sustain the process over the long term, not being suited to applications smaller than planetoid in scale. While the sun can sustain a fusion reaction for millions of years. The mass and gravity a sun requires to make that a long term achievement might never scale down to a miniaturized industrial grade application.

Fusions extremely high efficiency is due to its near zero energy leakage. The suns high gravity keeps everything contained providing insulation and low heat (thermal energy and mass) loss. Developing alternatives which perform the same functional tasks in a smaller application is difficult to conceive of even from a purely theoretical perspective.

I will reply to everyone :)
1. Yes, before the industrial design - still years of work, and honing technology. But I am sure that modern technologies and science will make it possible to reduce the time for the implementation of this, I will not be afraid of this word - a fundamental transition to a new level of humanity.
2. Conceptually, thermonuclear reactors can be implemented both in the form of gigantic stations, on a national scale, and "personal" for households, or, for example, apartment buildings. It's only a matter of time. Now you are sitting and reading this from a laptop weighing only 1.5 kg and a screen a couple of millimeters thick. 50 years ago, such power, which is now at your fingertips, occupied huge areas and looked more like a separate building :)
3. Now billions of dollars of investments will flow into this project and technology, from the same UAE, Qatar and others who now live off oil / gas, but understand that they need to invest in the future. And they have that opportunity. This will further accelerate the development and implementation of technology in our lives.
4. The technology is much safer than any other existing one, because if the integrity of the "container" where thermonuclear fusion takes place is violated, the plasma is instantly destroyed, and the process stops, without the possibility of "self-launch". In addition, primary fuel is absolutely harmless... When switching to Helium 3 (it's true, it is still a difficult process, due to its almost complete absence on Earth, but huge deposits on the Moon), the process becomes absolutely safe and environmentally friendly.

I feel grateful that I will be probably alive to witness one of the most important advances of humanity in terms of energy generation.
However, one should also wonder what company or organization will have the power over this kind of future-changing technology?

I would feel optimistic if this technology was free knowledge, no patents. But I assume either Siemens, General Electric, or other one will be the only ones authorized to build and operate these facilities in the long run.

The government of the United States, might donate one of two of these facilities to their allies in order to move the world closer to zero carbon emitions, but I don't see this wonderful technology going all around the world.

I can't wait to see bitcoin mining farms and power stations running on nuclear fusion. Talk about going carbon-neutral overnight.

I know this sounds far-fetched, but if I was involved in mining, I'd be happy to set up the first such farm.

for the science people wondering "how does it work"

first concept is to realise at the sub atomic level there is no substance. there are just frequency waves which enough waves combined at certain frequency do certain things.

from electric. to sound to light to xray
(the electro magnetic spectrum)

where certain frequencies resists/reflects other frequency and other frequencies combine or attract together. which is magnetism spectrum.. is what we feel as substance. others interfere(change frequency)and others are light frequency is the colour or ability to see it. and so on

an atom is filled with many(more then trillions) different frequencies to cause it to be felt and seen they emit these frequency waves. which with enough at certain frequencies become things like 'photons' (light energy) or sound or are attracted together in large(for nanoscale) to become substance

the process is to send enough waves from light-xray spectrum frequency which then breaks the hydrogen(bunch of frequency waves) magnetic repulsion range of frequencies, and changing the frequency to the magnetic attraction(compress/implode), which attracts and then reacts changing the waves that then represent helium +excess waves of lower frequency at the frequency useful for "energy"

this excess waves of lower frequency(heat energy) which then warms up water that is then sent to a turbine as steam to power a generator
 
they were able to do this where the amount of energy needed to cause the light-xray input.. caused an output of more waves of energy than were used to create the laser

dumbing it down...

2 grannies shouting caused 3 kids to scream. it caused more sound
(where sound represent waves.. but not at the sound spectrum/frequency)

media was reporting a (rounded) 2mj input gave a upto 3mj output
i first thought that was only 600watt in 800watt out

but that was at a faster then microsecond scale meaning, converted to a watts per hour. would be a huge number

You are asking a bunch of non-experts for opinions and forecasts about a high tech/scientific topic.
I'm not an expert in nuclear power plants and physics. What kind of opinions do you want? Most of the people would say "Yeah, that's great, but it will be implemented after 20-30-40 years or more." I remember reading about thermonuclear technological breakthrough in Russia years ago. Does Russia have thermonuclear reactors right now? Nope and they won't have such reactors even after 10 years.
The fossil fuel lobby and the green energy lobby would be very upset by such news and they will do everything they can to prevent such thermonuclear projects from achieving massive success.

Just remember one thing..... The Oil / Coal / Gas giants have invested their profits into many other industries too, they will most probably invest their money into "new" technologies like this and continue making massive profits.

Abu Dhabi was formerly an undeveloped town of only local importance, but the emirate’s oil revenues enabled it to evolve into a modern city with a fully developed infrastructure. (Real Estate and Property Investments / Investing in Funds, Stocks, and Shares of other large companies)  ;)

Always look for the information that's NOT provided.

First off.   We have been able to do fusion for quite a long time.   The problem is pretty much this...  Controlled fusion that produces more power then you spent.  Without blowing yourself up or burning the building down.


They have Not achieved that in my estimation.

And Why might you ask I say this.   Due to the Information that WAS NOT included in the announcement.   And its Very very important information.



Question that were Not answered....    or even posed. 

How Much Power did it take to Start the Reaction ...... The only information provided here was the laser power.   But what about CONTAINMENT!?  You need a whopping magnetic field to Hold the reaction that takes a ton of power as well as the lasers to start the reaction/

Secondly.  Just as Important.    How Long Were you Able to maintain the reaction before containment field failure?  See Problem 2 with fusion is containment.   Super hot Plasma from fusion reactions is Crazy strong And highly Unpredictable.   Field failure is usually measured in billionths of a second. 

So what I see here is ....   ITS GRANT TIME! news cycle.

More then willing to change my OP But Tracking the silence is as important as the noise. 


I still say with current tech Thorium reactors is the future.

There is an assumption that shareware energy can nullify the cost of cryptocurrencies with the concept of PoW, because. a significant part of their "cost" is formed precisely by the cost of energy for mining.
No, I'm not saying that the cost of PoW will go to zero, but the price will drop. Imagine - you actually have unlimited energy, you can build a farm as high as the moon, and mine a huge amount of coins! What happens when the production of a certain product increases, with a constant demand in the market? That's right - price drop ...
But it's still far from that, unfortunately :)

My opinion is that it will be more than one year, maybe even a decade(s), before nuclear fusion becomes more or less usable in everyday life. And we should not hope that all the oil and gas tycoons will just give up in this struggle. The only thing I can say is that I am sure that someday we will use the clean energy of nuclear fusion for our own purposes.

the laser cost is the answer to your first question about starting the reaction.

to me i see that question and answer of the experiment equivelent to saying
"a match was struck which caused a bonfire of flames. exponential heat everyone exponential heat.. "

questions i have
yes they managed to produce more energy than the lasers.
but how much outside the building cost/energy was used to produce the pellet that was burned

EG fire is free. once you strike a single match you can then produce a flame as big as a bonfire or even a forest fire.. that can maintain more energy than the initial match and far longer than the initial match burns(until it reached your finger)

but its less about the energy creation exponential of the match vs bonfire.. its about the burning of material cost to make that also needs to be added
much like burning wood in a home fire place is not about the energy from a match exponentialised into a fire. and more about the wood cost to get that exponential amount of flame

where the cost of the wood is not free
...
also in a similar topic asking about the time scales of going from lab to commercial release..
it is indeed at stage three-four. and yes it is "grant finding season"


the power wattage emitted was indeed more then the power input.
which for a small capsule the size of a petit-pois pea emitted enough energy in less than a nanosecond than the entire energy grid of america.. if you calculate the american grid energy divided down to same under nano second per watt scale

however to continuously feed this once every 60 seconds at scale to offer AC power for the grid. requires more capsules and maintaining the charge and discharge

which is where they are now at the efficiency test stage of prolonging the charge-discharge time to scale up to wattage per hour instead of sub-nanosecond
the 2.1mj to 3mj equates to
583.3w to 875w per XX pico second

and also scaling down the physical size of the building surrounding the the engine. so that it can be used upon submarines or built in small towns/cities
aswell as cost control and quality control of the capsules burned(the hydrogen equivalent of firewood

Fusion energy will not be able to completely replace fossil energy at any time, because fusion energy also comes from limited resources, namely uranium and plutonium and these are very limited and very toxic resources compared to fossil energy. What researchers are currently doing is only developing renewable energy which will reduce the use of fossil energy, not replace it, because it will not be possible to replace fossil energy in the future because there will be more problems that arise such as economic and political problems.

https://rentar.com/impossible-replace-fossil-fuels-alternative-fuel-sources/

And actually fossil energy is not too bad, indeed the effect of the carbon dioxide it produces causes global warming but in my opinion this problem in the next few years will be resolved with CO2 capture devices which have been developed by companies like CleanO2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JaN6kT_zRI

It's true that the development of this energy fusion is very good and I'm very amazed at it because in the future we will feel life like in Iron Man, but that doesn't need to be exaggerated because what is exaggerated is not good and also we shouldn't be distracted by problems safety of this fusion energy. Indeed they claim that this is safe and secure energy, but this has not been proven in commercialization.

I don't think so. They are probably lying/bluffing so Russia and Saudis panic and sell their oil for a cheaper price. They won't fall for this trick if they are smart. Oil/Gas will be around even long after this current generation dies. It simply is the best and most practical source of energy. The problem is, the west have don't have them enough and well... nobody cares.

1. If you carefully read the full announcement - it is indicated that the total energy spent on holding a stable plasma to obtain an energy output was less received as a result of the process. Gain/cost ratio - 120%
Yes, the energy spent on the initial start-up is not taken into account, but I am sure that with such an indicator of efficiency, the influence of "start-up" costs will tend to 0 in proportion to the operating time of the installation.

2. Thorium, against the background of controlled thermonuclear fusion, has disadvantages:
- It's hard to get. It is very diffusely distributed on Earth. Although it is estimated to be more in total than the same uranium.
- It is much more difficult and expensive to extract from the rock, due to its scattered distribution.
- Thorium is not safe, although less dangerous than plutonium/uranium. The presence of thorium aerosols is thought to increase the risk of lung, pancreatic, and blood cancers.
- The technology has not been brought to industrial widespread use either. But there are working experimental ones, for example, in the 1960s, the thorium reactor LFTR Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment was built in the USA.

Fossil fuel lobby has been really strong and they have really been doing their best for the last few centuries to ensure that alternative energy sources do not appear and are not used by mankind. Therefore, scientists who invented something new or were close to solving it disappeared or died for unknown reasons, or inventions were bought by someone and their developments disappeared. But now is a different time. There are only a few decades left of fossil fuels on Earth, everyone understands that it will end soon. Therefore, states are actively looking for and finding a replacement for them. Such a study itself and its positive results were not previously possible. But now there is a question of the survival of mankind due to global climate change. Here, corporate interests will no longer work.

After reading this news, I remembered one of Vanga's prophecies. She said that soon we will have several artificial suns that will evenly illuminate the Earth throughout the day. It will be a ball with a shell about six meters in diameter, inside which the same reaction will take place as in the sun. True, Vanga then predicted a catastrophe when two such artificial suns collided in the sky. But anyway, this suggests that such an invention is quite possible and it will be soon.

You're confusing fission with fusion. They're two very different things (almost opposites).

Fission produces toxic waste because the way it's produced in the US and UK leaves it with toxic waste. Repeated reactions are possible and done in other countries which greatly reduces the amount of nuclear waste there is.

Fossil fuels aren't here to stay. They either keep being used and countries go chasing after the money they lose from the effects of global climate change or countries switch to greener solutions. Energy storage is a thing and a lot of renewable sources are available together (so if wind production is low, solar works).

Fossil might have been here to stay when it was cheaper than renewables, now it's 4x the price!

No as Long as BTC continues on its current course it only gives out 21,000,000 coins.

By 2056 the reward is down to 0.0122xxxx btc.

But the really interesting coin will be Doge.

Doge reward never changes it is x coins per year with no 1/2ing

so
year 1         1x
year 2         2x wow 100% inflation
.
.
.
year 10      10 x
year 11      11 x     down to 10% inflation
.
.
.
year 20      20x
year 21      21x     down to 5% inflation
.
.
.
year 50      50x
year 51      51x      only 2% inflation
.
.
.
year 100 100x
year 101 101x    just 1% inflation


So a long development time for fusion to work favors Doge bigly as it won't run out of mining.

And Musk will be around long enough to reap big iron cash  whatever from this. he is 51 give him 30 years he is 81 and BTC will have a serious rewards issue.  while Doge will just keep on trucking with fusion power.

Nuclear energy in general is the best midterm solution to environmental issues for many countries. If a country can meet its need for electricity by using solar/wind/geothermal sources, that's fantastic, but in many climates it's not possible. Nuclear energy is more stable, it can help increase energy production, and it's still much better than burning coal or using gas.
Nuclear fusion is supposed to be much more efficient, and it would be great to finally crack it. Hopefully, this initial experiment will lead to further research and practical implementations. It should take years to ensure it's safe, but I think we'll get there.

its grant grab season.. the bidding war begins. those who can prove fusion first get the golden grants of government money. those who delay get the left overs or nothing

Progress in the field of thermonuclear fusion is inevitable.  

Developments in this area have been underway since the 1960s.  At the same time, an adventurous policy in the field of hydrocarbon trade (on the part of oil and gas exporting countries) can significantly bring the moment of introducing this technology closer.  

At the same time, in my opinion, the process of abandoning hydrocarbon fuel will be gradual.  In the past, oil and gas have replaced coal as fuel.  However, coal is still used as a fuel.  

Therefore, in the future, oil and gas will continue to be used as a fuel and as a raw material for the chemical industry.

Absolutely agree ! The only thing I will add is that oil and gas will lose their status as critical fossil fuels, and will most likely be used on a residual basis or only where the technological process cannot be replaced. For example, the production of plastics. Although in the presence of almost unlimited and very cheap energy, I do not exclude the emergence of completely new technologies that will replace today's ones in the same area of plastics production, or they will be replaced by completely different materials. It's called progress :)

In the spring of 2022, I read Yaroslav Gzhendovich's novel "Helium - 3".  It described our immediate future. 

According to the author, in place of Russia there will be a new state called New Soviets.  Putin II will be the general secretary there.  Europe will turn into a totalitarian state, concerned about environmental problems.  China will control the technological development of the planet. 

As for oil and gas, according to Yaroslav Gzhendovich, they will lose their significance due to the popularization of thermonuclear fusion technologies.  Cars with an internal combustion engine will only be used in poor countries in Africa and Asia. 

At the same time, it is the Arab oil-producing countries that will suffer the most from the new energy crisis.

Announcements of "breakthrough" in nuclear fusion happen all the time, and generally nothing comes out of it. This one seems to be more concrete, but I doubt that we'll start building fusion reactors tomorrow, it might still be decades until the first profitable reactor will be launched.

To me the most remarkable thing about nuclear fusion is not how clean it is (I believe fission is also sufficiently clean), but how cheap and abundant can it be. Perhaps if this technology can be mass scaled, we will enter a new technological era.

Yeah last time I checked nature is still giving us free energy from solar, wind and water however humans have not implemented the perfect solution to use them 100%.
So what we have done is, we are trying to create mini sun on the earth itself so that we can power everything in the long with small energy pockets installed everywhere.
I am amazed they were not exploring the ways of harnessing suns energy rather they went behind creating the entire sun on the earth.

I learnt from my last post that people are always agreeing to disagreements, so I’m also going to do same with this topic. I don’t think it’s breakthrough.

I think the only currently feasible fusion fuel we can get in large quantities exists on the moon in the form of Helium-3. If we can somehow transport enough of that back to earth, fusion energy will be halfway ready. The other half is designing a fusion reactor which can function in perpetuity. Right now the inner workings of the reactor either melt away or give off by-products (caused by the heat) which interrupts the fusion process.

As far as fuel goes, not enough fuel exists naturally. So unless we find a way to fuse heavier elements, our only option is to mine the moon.

It's a long way from an experiment that yielded minimal gains to a commercial solution.
Those megajoules sound like much but in reality, the whole energy (not the gain) is the equivalent of around 50 ml of oil, or since somebody mentioned mining, the whole gain from this experiment would be able to power one! s19 miner for almost one minute.
So we just need 200 000 times more once and another 1440 on top, just to power all the bitcoin mining, so that's what, just 3 million more!  :D

Just as we have devices that can have power at wind speeds of 1m/s, the problem is that they have only some 200 microwatts capacity, so, we need a few trillion o quadrillions of them.

We should stick to fission for a while, cause commercial fusion will not be here next decades.
 

I agree that there were a lot of statements. But they were mostly theoretical or unprovable. And what I described is already a PRACTICAL implementation of this technology! As a result of the constructed new system, it was possible to spend less energy to maintain the process than this process generated energy. Useful energy that can be "selected" for practical consumption. It does not sound very logical and some will say that a closed system cannot produce more energy than it consumes - a contradiction to the basic laws of physics, but here is a different system, a different principle of operation.

Yes, and someone wrote above - no, this is not a synthesis. This is a process diametrically opposed to a nuclear reaction with nuclear fission, with the release of energy. A nuclear reaction simply has a very high efficiency, but not 100%. Here the process is based on the MERGING of the nuclei of elements.
The safest, from the word at all, thermonuclear process is possible on Helium-3, as a result of which no by-product, hazardous waste is produced.

This is of course a great development for the world and our future, there is no denying in that. However, what people are failing to realize, and that is unfortunately very very sad, is the fact that the climate change everyone loved to ignore and made so political is already underway, and that means we are already quite screwed.

I am not saying that we should be not working towards a better world, a fusion tech with a great cheap electricity would be such a lovely thing, but the clean energy we needed had to come so many years ago instead of having such high pollution and having such high not clean energy method as well. So, even though this is still a great development, it's not enough, and it's too late unfortunately, our future will suck.

New poor life you say, lol.. anyway, that's the expectation for nations with over dependency on crude and crude products but, its unlikely that, the nuclear energy source would be one that would be readily utilised anywhere based on safety reasons.

I'll make a particular reference to what is stated in OP which centera on the effects on the equipments as per its destruction due to unprepared or foreseen results. These are radioactive substances we are talking about and I as harmful as it could get and having other nations go about building nuclear reactors for such experiments would be arming them as well for a time we might not know to exist or come.

I don't think the advent of crude products is over with this invention.

Fusion Reactor is very dangerous and cause a lot of heat. it needs to be cooled down 24/7. One moment it does not receive cooling, it can cause a blast. Maybe they have found a way to maintain that. Only in cold country it can produce the maximum output. The question is, are they getting the energy equivalent to the expenses?
Well many country may not have access to the technology if it cost more to implement the fusion reactor. If it comes at a cheap price and all country in the world can access it then they may consider using it. But the gas/ oil/ coal can be sold in the country itself with cheap price which could help them to use it in factory to produce more and export the goods to other country to earn foreign money. Thus, increasing the economy itself.
If this is a breakthrough, then it will be helping the world to grow. Not making other poor. I think the positive thing here is both hydrocarbon fuels and this could be used together to increase the power that we can get.

The advantage of thermonuclear controlled fusion is that there is no process of nuclear decay with the appearance of various dangerous isotopes, here the diametrically opposite principle is the combination of nuclei, with the appearance of a new nucleus + the release of large amounts of energy. Both at the entrance and at the exit - completely safe substances. when using Helium-3, there is generally zero danger.
Yes, I do not argue that fossil hydrocarbons will disappear, moreover, I wrote that they will occupy a niche where there is nothing to replace them with. For example, the production of plastics - I still do not see an alternative to hydrocarbons for the mass production of plastics

In my opinion, Mankind has no other alternative than to force the development of new technologies.  

Only scientific and technological progress can save Mankind.  Yes, there is a great temptation to slow down scientific and technological progress, but this will not help solve environmental problems, but will make Mankind absolutely defenseless against new external threats.

Mankind needs to simultaneously preserve the ecology of the Earth and colonize the near, middle and outer space.  

Expansion is necessary for the preservation of Humanity as a species.  And for this, technologies are needed (in particular, the technology of thermonuclear fusion).

As far as I can see, recycled or even reusable items will probably make up for the most things. Look at the bamboo carton cups, they are made out of bamboo, and they are grown and can be grown forever, all those starbucks cups and so forth could be pure bamboo. Or we could use something else, or if you want to make sure it's better, mugs and similar stuff that people carry their coffees in? That could hold water too, and nothing wrong with that.

So all in all, maybe the items we will buy could change, maybe we won't buy a plastic bottle of water anymore, or a bottle of coca cola or whatever, maybe the thing they put that into will change, a reusable one or another item, but we will survive, no plastic is not a bad thing.

Here I absolutely agree! Reusable goods, and goods that can be recycled and recycled, are also a way to reduce financial costs, and it is possible to reduce the consumption of hydrocarbons, for direct or indirect needs. By the way - the use of environmentally friendly solutions, such as the one you gave as an example - is a good move, in all respects! This is environmental friendliness, this is some help to the environment, this is not pollution due to extraction, and this is an intermediate positive effect - for example, photosynthesis and the subsequent absorption of carbon dioxide. In one word - oil and gas monopolies must be abandoned and any available alternatives used!

my problem with the END the Era of hydrocarbons.   


Plastics.   everyone seems to forget that part. 

your phone... your clothes.  your car.   your medical equipment.. your furniture...your computers...LED diodes... all your equipment has plastic.   ALL of it is Hydrocarbons.      the lists while Not endless is freaking huge and we have ZERO replacements for hydrocarbons in 99% of it. 

the future of oil is still quite firm. 

The only problem is that the use of materials that affect the environment such as plastic continues to increase, no matter how much we recycle, reduce and reuse if companies continue to produce heavy plastic ware, it will definitely be useless . But if all the different countries talk about this problem, it can definitely be solved, especially if the ban on anything that damages the nature can be enacted.

In my opinion, it is not necessary to introduce strict bans on the production of plastic products.

How can we save our planet from harmful plastic pollution?

This question can be answered differently.  You can breed special bacteria that will feed on plastic.  These bacteria can be kept in special containers and plastic trash can be periodically loaded into these containers.  

This will make it possible to effectively dispose of harmful plastic, which practically does not decompose into the simplest elements and harms the ecology of our planet.

Second post replies to first post :)
Really - the negative impact of the massive use of plastic, especially for domestic purposes. And most likely, alternative solutions will be found. What will it be ? It can be a replacement from natural components, such as derivatives of flora. Or materials that, though mostly composed of hydrocarbons, are easily recyclable or degradable. The insane use of plastic is a really huge problem. At home, we probably refused by 95%, all bags are now either made of paper or starch-based materials (tactilely a very pleasant replacement for household plastic bags), disposable tableware - paper or recycling, and so on. Plastic bottles are perhaps the biggest problem. We try to buy in glass, and we collect plastic ones separately and give them for recycling.

The energy involved in nuclear fusion is very high and the ability to reproduce same in a controlled experiment consistently is a major issue that has to be overcomed also it's costly.... I also heard that somewhere in the Philippines that there's a research that maelworms can feed on styrofoam and complex polystyrene so if more investment is done we can tackle the menace of the seemingly non biodegradable waste while we await a perfect application of nuclear fusion....

Not all physicists support the claim that this scientific breakthrough is something special that could change our world. More precisely, he can, but perhaps not for the better. Experts believe that this achievement of American physicists is too insignificant, and besides, it was done too late. And this discovery could lead to even more deadly nuclear weapons. Indeed, in a similar reactor, where American scientists conducted their experiment, neutrons can be produced that can be used to create nuclear explosive elements such as plutonium-239, uranium-235 and uranium-233. That is, a thermonuclear reactor can be used to produce raw materials for nuclear bombs.

These reactors will also be able to produce tritium, a form of heavy hydrogen used to increase the yield of a nuclear explosion, making nuclear bombs smaller and easier to use in a missile warhead.

Such a statement is not unfounded, because the Livermore National Laboratory. Lawrence, founded in 1952 in response to the USSR's atomic bomb test, has long worked on nuclear weapons research.

So far, scientists have not reached a consensus on whether the scientific breakthrough of American physicists is the way to obtain clean energy in the near future. Some experts say fusion power is unlikely to save humanity from the rapidly looming climate crisis.

For me if there should be a regulation that enforces the proper use of harmful things like plastic it's make reduce a damage to in our environment.

About that kind of bacteria, if it is possible that it will help to reduce the amount of harmful plastics that have been increasing for a long time. If it continues to be used improperly, the world will surely become a huge garbage dump.

hydrocarbon refinaries only have until about 2069 until oil reserves deplete. so they want to reduces the burn rate from fuel industry to then expand the reverses years left by 100+years instead of 47. because they know even after 2069 people will still want and need plastic products (car dashboards, house window frames, house guttering, etc)

my view on plastics(in 2022) is this
oil becomes fuel. and leaves some nasty toxic sludge behind, if they just burred or burned that, its super dangerous for the environment

however converting that sludge (as they have always done) into useful products has saved that super toxic effect. but now we are at level two. what happens with that converted plastic

having it as single use then disposal is just delaying problems. yes its form is less toxic, but at same time while they pretend that it takes a millenia to break down. we are already seeing microplastics inside animals and ourselves in just about 100 years from first industrial scale use

this is because thin plastic products like grocery bags break down in decades not millenia

we should be prioritising that toxic sludge to becoming long term use plastic such as window frames and other utilities that keep it from disposal for 50 years and then can be ripped out of windows when housing is demolished and recycled into something else with a 50+ year lifecycle

development needs to be done to get cost effective non plastic wear for temporary things like grocery bags, soda bottles, packaging, while meeting the sludge supply and long lasting plastic demand to keep hydrocarbons from just going to waste.

i know some has been done for instance fast food used to have polystyrene trays, now they use card/paper
grocery stores offer paper bags or card board boxes or even cloth bags
some drinks companies are moving to strictly metal cans or glass bottles. but their progress is slow

i understand the fuel refinery need to get rid of toxic sludge quick and cheap which means due to lack of demand of long life plastic the sludge mainly ends up going to one-use product industry cheap cost or free
where by if the one use product industry didnt take the sludge then the fuel refineries end up stock piling and disposing of more toxic sludge

but we need to start finding more long term use demand of plastics to take that sludge and also recycled plastic while reducing how much sludge goes to one use products or even just burned/disposed of at refinery

---

im also looking into the new industry of desalinating water which leaves behind the brine by-product where researchers are currently trying to develop products/demand to use that brine rather then re-toxifying the oceans with it.
this unsurprisingly ends up showing the thermo fusion industry demand for heavy water which can be found in brine.. as well as lithium for EV car batteries

The bad effects of misuse of plastic items are really big, but if it can be legislated to follow the correct recycling and its use, it will definitely give good results to the world. About your way of reducing the use of plastic in the household is also better.

The only problem this is there big companies that use plastic bottles are really the ones responsible.Every country should watch out for and put a law of using glass or things that are easy to rot to put them in the product. Every day they release billions of plastic bottles and is not better.

they cant legislate plastics out of the single-use industry as it would just leave stock piles of sludge at the refineries.

its the single use industry that was established to give purpose to sheer amount of sludge by-product of refineries..

in short you cant poop in a toilet and then ban fertilisers because otherwise your just left with a pile of poop at the sewerage plant that then feeds back to your toilet and overflows onto your nice bathroom tiles

unless you can find a new use of poop. the only options are to continue using poop as a fertiliser while reducing how much poop is flushed by finding new tech ways to deal with bowel movement

..
until a country can ramp up demand for long-use plastic to cover the sludge supply. the single-use industry would always be needed

.. they are however trying to find alternative tech to power vehicles to reduce the oil demand to then reduce the sludge that needs to be made into single use. but thats a 40 year goal.

whereby the hope is reducing oil ned by 90% extents oil reserves from 40 years to 400 years. where the sludge by--product meets the 10% demand of long life plastics.. (thats the hope)

yep i said it hydro carbons are not going to end. there would still be oils converted to fuels and plastics. the idea is to bring it down to like 10% and then offset that by having more then 90% renewable energy and carbon sequestration