Is trying to go into fusion realistic at this point?

  • Other
  • Thread starter Luke Velie
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Fusion Point
In summary, the conversation discusses the feasibility of fusion energy and its potential timeline for being a viable energy source. The person speaking shares their findings of pessimism surrounding fusion energy and their own doubts about pursuing a career in it. They also mention the possibility of pursuing renewable energy engineering, such as solar, geothermal, wind, or hydroelectric. They ask for advice on which type of fusion research may be more promising and express interest in finding discussions about it online. The conversation ends with the suggestion that a career in solar or geothermal energy may be a more timely way to fight climate change.
  • #1
Luke Velie
7
0
Hi guys,
I posted about a closely related subject earlier, but with more and more research, all I have found regarding fusion energy is pure pessimism, and that it will always be a theoretical hope that just won’t happen. For example, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists basically says that international projects such as ITER are just using a ton of fossil fuel energy, and their results aren’t even sufficient (not to mention they’re still like 15-20 years away). With that in mind, my fusion energy study ambitions have exponentially fallen, and I’m wondering if it might just be more practical if I go into some sort of renewable energy engineering such as solar engineering, geothermal engineering, wind turbine engineering, or tidal wave (hydroelectric) engineering? Fusion power very much interests me, but if it’s just a theoretical concept not likely to happen within the next 20-40 years, then what’s the point, is basically the conclusion I’ve reached. However, if the Bulletin and other sources are being overly critical and pessimistic, then which sort of fusion research would be more promising to go into - magnetic confinement, or inertial confinement? From what I understand, magnetic confinement uses magnetohydrodynamics and tokamaks, and inertial confinement is laser-based. I can’t find very many clear or credible answers online of which is more promising.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There have been some discussions about it here. Have you tried a forum search?
 
  • Like
Likes Luke Velie
  • #3
Suppose you ignore the timelines of the opponents, many of whom have axes to grind, and only look at the timeline of the proponents.
  1. ITER started in 2006 with a planned 2016 start.
  2. The first plasma experiments are now planned for 2025 with D-T fusion starting in 2035.
  3. The ITER successor, DEMO is planned to have construction begin in 2030 and have electricity generation in 2048. This was based on a 2016 start of ITER, so with no additional delays, just sliding the schedule gives a 2057 start.
From that, your guess is as good as mine as to when a commercial reactor would come on line. I don't see this as happening before 2070. One way to look at this is that few careers have such a timeline planned out so far in advance. Most careers zig and zag in unplanned directions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Luke Velie
  • #4
phinds said:
There have been some discussions about it here. Have you tried a forum search?
I was unaware there were - where can I find them?
 
  • #5
Vanadium 50 said:
Suppose you ignore the timelines of the opponents, many of whom have axes to grind, and only look at the timeline of the proponents.
  1. ITER started in 2006 with a planned 2016 start.
  2. The first plasma experiments are now planned for 2025 with D-T fusion starting in 2035.
  3. The ITER successor, DEMO is planned to have construction begin in 2030 and have electricity generation in 2048. This was based on a 2016 start of ITER, so with no additional delays, just sliding the schedule gives a 2057 start.
From that, your guess is as good as mine as to when a commercial reactor would come on line. I don't see this as happening before 2070. One way to look at this is that few careers have such a timeline planned out so far in advance. Most careers zig and zag in unplanned directions.
Okay, so since I’m focused on a timely (as in next 15-20 years) way to fight climate change and do something with renewable energy, the solar or geothermal route might be the way to go. Thanks!
 
  • #6
Luke Velie said:
I was unaware there were - where can I find them?
upload_2018-10-21_13-14-4.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-10-21_13-14-4.png
    upload_2018-10-21_13-14-4.png
    8.9 KB · Views: 304
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd and boneh3ad

1. What is fusion and why is it important?

Fusion is a process that occurs when two or more atomic nuclei combine to form a heavier nucleus. This process releases a large amount of energy, which is what makes it important as a potential source of clean and abundant energy.

2. Is fusion currently being researched and developed?

Yes, fusion has been actively researched and developed for several decades. There are currently multiple fusion projects and experiments around the world, with the goal of achieving a sustained and controlled fusion reaction.

3. How close are we to achieving fusion energy?

While significant progress has been made, achieving fusion energy is still a complex and challenging task. The main challenge is creating and sustaining the extreme conditions required for fusion to occur, such as extremely high temperatures and pressures.

4. What are the potential benefits of fusion energy?

If successful, fusion energy could provide a nearly limitless source of clean and sustainable energy, without producing greenhouse gas emissions or long-lived radioactive waste. It could also reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and help mitigate the effects of climate change.

5. Are there any risks associated with fusion energy?

The main risk associated with fusion energy is the potential for accidents or malfunctions in the fusion reactor. However, unlike nuclear fission reactions, fusion reactions are inherently safe and do not produce catastrophic events. Additionally, the fuel used in fusion reactions is not radioactive, reducing the risk of long-term environmental damage.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
969
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
2
Replies
61
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
28
Views
2K
Back
Top