A breakthrough in thermonuclear fusion technology! End of the era of hydrocarbon

[jackg]

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.

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.

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!

[philipma1957]

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.

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

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.

[kryptqnick]

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.

[franky1]

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

[Smartprofit]

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"?

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.

[DrBeer]

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"?

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

[Smartprofit]

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"?

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.

[hatshepsut93]

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"?

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.

[Flexystar]

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.

[goldkingcoiner]

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"?

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.

[stompix]

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"?

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! 

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.
 

[DrBeer]

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"?

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.

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.

[el kaka22]

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.

[Mr.right85]

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"?

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.

[tjtonmoy]

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.

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?

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"?

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.

[DrBeer]

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"?

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.

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

[Smartprofit]

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.

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).

[darewaller]

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

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.

[DrBeer]

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!

[Nhazwrath]

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.