[deleted]

Given that with the exploitation of fossil fuels, the industry/economy shifted from slave-based to engine-based, I can't even imagine how the future will look like! But... The NIF result is encouraging but not conclusive ;)

I've been hearing fusion is "right around the corner" for most of my 54 years. I'd caution against being too certain that fusion is right around the corner. It isn't. The recent announcement is an advancement, but we're still AT LEAST 30 years away from feasible fusion, unless there's some really astounding breakthrough coming soon.

Totally agree. We lack materials, fuel (for tritium based concepts), a high enough gain factor and... A pilot plant with a competitive price 😅

It would change everything in every way. There is not a single thing in today's world that is not tethered to energy. Removing that bottleneck would be astounding.

I don't know. We seem to be making more progress now than in the past, so it might not be 30 years away. I predict Helion will be the first to get a working fusion power plant going in less than 10 years.

https://www.youtube.com/@HelionEnergy

Fusion energy is not currently feasible. Fusion is an option to switch to AFTER moving to modern renewable sources like wind, solar, and nuclear. Fusion energy is, as the EPA said the other day, something for our grandkids. And to speculate what life would look like in 100 years, let alone how fusion energy would change life in 100 years from now, seems difficult at best.

Boy, that doesn't sound familiar at all.

"Scientists Achieve Fusion Reaction By Firing an Electron Beam at Fuel" - New York Times, June 11, 1977

"Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion Offers Hope for Power of Future" - New York Times, Nov 11, 1991

"Fusion proponents, he notes, also estimate that commercial applications of their work are at least 20 years off. And it will be 30 years beyond then before fusion power has significant impact." - Los Angeles Times, April 19, 1989

"Actually, fusion research has made remarkable progress in recent years. There is no longer any question of its scientific feasibility." - Scientific American, October 21, 1999.

Color me.... skeptical...

Fusion energy is NOT feasible.

At least not currently. It's too resource intensive for not enough energy, and that will be the case for a very long time. Right now the next step for energy is to focus on renewables. Even when fusion is actually feasible, it's not unlimited energy, it's a lot of energy sure but the difference between a lot of energy and legitimately infinite energy is extreme. Even if it were infinite energy, a major problem will be the transport and storage of energy, which due to the slow progress of battery technologies is not something that will be fixed anytime soon. Fusion energy is a nice concept sure, but it's just not realistic for a long long time.

We've been able to produce net positive fusion energy since 1952 with the Ivy Mike thermonuclear test. We've just never figured out how to harness it for anything other than blowing stuff up.

Unfortunately renewable sources are also not currently feasible without fossil fuels to supplement during peak demand.

>Unfortunately renewable sources are also not currently feasible without fossil fuels to supplement during peak demand.

I think you'll be pleased to know that isn't true anymore! Energy storage and solar/wind yields have come a long way since the early 2000s. The barriers here are infrastructure, where the barriers of fusion is missing technology.

Why would you conflate plentiful with cheap? It's not like we'll all have a Mr. Fusion.

The production and distribution of power will still be a controlled and finite resource.

Not today, maybe with a big breakthrough in storage tech but currently it is not scalable at the national or global level due to supply chain issues, take lithium as just one example. We will still rely on natural gas peakers to keep the power on for quite a bit of time to come. IMO small modular reactors with current technology would be a great solution to supplement renewables and move away from fossil fuels. That said there are a multitude of issues that would have to be worked out on the world scale which seems improbable. Dig a little deeper. The fossil fuel inevitably is here until we find an on demand alternative. Peak energy demand can not be powered by renewables alone. This is not a political stance but unfortunately it's the reality.

Maybe we should leave the experimental results tell if fusion will work or not. The ITER project will research many of your points. And in general, things don't work untill we try to make them work ;)

Why Helion and not toroidal devices?

Helion's approach of getting electricity directly from the energy created by the fusion reaction seems intuitively to be the way to go. Other approaches rely on getting enough excess heat energy from the reaction to power steam turbines.

Oil and gas will be used up within the next 40 years. Necessity is the mother of invention.

40 years from now will only be 80+ years too late... And that assumes we won't come up with a way to squeeze out more. Or turn something else into oil. And we've got 350 years of coal left to dig up.

I’m not sure which model you’re looking at but the one I use for reference shows us running out of coal in the year 2117. Also, we’re more likely to leave wells half full than “squeeze out more.” The return on investment makes drilling non-profitable about half way through a well so we actually probably have less time than the model predicts.

There's this, and this.

Others have completely different numbers. This one from Stanford says 90 years.

Either way, it's more than enough.