Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Sashinii t1_izuetjv wrote

Nuclear fusion providing unlimited clean energy for everyone might happen in the 2020's (my orginal prediction was the 2040's, but AI and breakthroughs like this changed that), which would obviously change the world for the better immediately.

44

Cr4zko t1_izuwrb0 wrote

Nuclear fusion was promised in the 1950s and I think it could have been possible by 1980 if it wasn't for dumb activists. Chernobyl in 1986 didn't help.

23

HAL_9_TRILLION t1_izvspeo wrote

If there really is a leap that has been made, I wonder if AI had anything to do with it. 🤔

5

NorthVilla t1_izx8wyf wrote

I don't think so. It's clear that the problem isn't really about funding etc, it's about human imperfections in being able to calculate the ideal way to make a fusion reaction work in an energy positive way. Without AI, it would just be guesswork and trial and error, stuff that probably wouldn't yield the same results.

1

Cr4zko t1_izx91pw wrote

Do you think it'll be a thing in 10 years though? Europe's current energy crisis seems to be accelerating things.

1

ShadoWolf t1_izyibo1 wrote

maybe... but a good chunk of big fusion break throughs lately have been due to machine learning. And just general material science breakthroughs.

For example building someone like ITER in the 1980's.. would have been very difficult to boarder line impossible.. since we just didn't have the super conducting magnets that could handle the current needed for plasma confinement needed.

stellarator shouldn't have been do able in the 80's due to not having machine learn algorithm for plasma confinement.

And internal confinement laser fusion wouldn't have been do able without the laser optics for it.

​

Ya.. it might have been possible to rush to these technologies if you where diverting a good chunk of the GDP to this alone and willing to rapidly prototype full scale reactors attempts in parallel

1

I_spread_love_butter t1_izvijzl wrote

I doubt that 'everyone' claim though. It's very likely that the technology won't be shared with the entire world thus increasing the gap between developed and undeveloped countries

6

Few_Artist8482 t1_izxq106 wrote

All technology starts implementation someplace. Over time, if the tech is sound and manageable it will expand. Other than some weapons tech, I can't think of any tech that isn't available broadly. All advanced countries have access to nuclear energy for example. Not all choose to pursue it, but no one is being limited. There will probably be affordability issues more than anything, as this process sounds very expensive. Over time costs should come down. Everything takes time.

1

Rumianti6 t1_izuijqa wrote

What a ridiculous claim. I bet you are one of those guys who thinks AGI is coming in the 2020s. Yeah, you'll still be here in 2030 talking about how "AGI is just around the corner". Fusion is going to take decades.

−34

Sashinii t1_izujqp3 wrote

I've said many times on this subreddit that I think AGI will be here in the 2020's and ASI will follow in 2030, which I think now more than ever, and that's thanks to the start of a new industrial revolution, so progress will accelerate faster than even I think it will.

26

Imaginary_Ad307 t1_izupouk wrote

Like you I am expecting AGI in the 2020's but ASI would be simultaneously or a couple of months after.

9

Rumianti6 t1_izukq5m wrote

You actually believe in the myth of exponential progression? The truth is that technological progression is linear and might have some faster occasional bumps in progress.

ASI in 2030 is just ridiculous, it is almost 2023. Not even a decade away. Someone really needs to do their research.

−41

SamGanji t1_izum39c wrote

You think the progression from the beginning of the 20th century to where we are now is not exponential in the scope of human history? That's the definition of exponential.

23

Apollo24_ t1_izuv39l wrote

It's not even just about the 20th century or about humans, it's the entire history of the universe.

13.8 billion years ago - the big bang

4.5 billion years ago - earth was formed

3.5 billion years ago - cellular life emerges

2.1 billion years ago - multicellular life emerges

500 million years ago - cambrian explosion

178 million years ago - first mammals appear

55 million years ago - first primates appear

1.5 million years ago - homo habilis

200 thousand years ago - homo sapiens

70 thousand years ago - cognitive revolution

12 thousand years ago - neolithic revolution

500 years ago - scientific revolution

200 years ago - first industrial revolution

100 years ago - second industrial revolution

50 years ago - third indusrial revolution

Next up - fourth industrial revolution (AI revolution)

22

Sashinii t1_izun14e wrote

There are graphs showing that exponential growth is real; Ray Kurzweil shows them in his books and presentations.

I've been thinking about compiling all of those graphs into a thread just so the information is readily available, so I should stop being lazy and make that thread.

12

AsuhoChinami t1_izusoy0 wrote

Rumianiti6 is a fucking moron. My block list is becoming so long thanks to the idiots on this sub.

12

Shelfrock77 t1_izuvb2i wrote

Ask the World Economci Forum about exponential progress. They literally talk about what they are going to do for the “4th industrial revolution” aka the singularity.

7

Rumianti6 t1_izwizi8 wrote

Wait, aren't you the local joke of this subreddit? Nothing you say is anywhere near logical or true. There will be a 4th industrial revolution but it will not be the singularity.

−2

Yoshbyte t1_izuz26t wrote

Technology is exponential. Every major breakthrough is a period following core inventions. The steam engine is a super obvious example but there are tons, you can point at things like calculus and see the insane speed of in specifically linked areas also

5

blueSGL t1_izvkwj4 wrote

Finally got out more energy that went in. Well ain't that something :D

11

[deleted] t1_izwt58y wrote

[deleted]

7

PlasmaChroma t1_izxtksc wrote

A lot of the issue highlighted right there: considered an impossible dream -- the wrong mentality going into it to begin with. Hopefully this can be put to rest so progress can finally move forward. If it's obviously possible to achieve in some form then more discoveries are coming.

2

_B_Little_me t1_izw2opt wrote

Can someone ELI5 how the energy is then captured for electricity?

2

apple_achia t1_izw69mu wrote

It’s always a good guess that it uses the standard power generation technique of any plant: use the heat to boil water, use the steam to generate power through a turbine. That’s how fission works, that’s how coal works, that’s how most things work, excepting solar and hydroelectric

10

Nanaki_TV t1_izwy93k wrote

That always seemed like a waste to me. Imagine if aliens came down and saw us using fusion. They'd be like "yea then you use that energy with the... wait, you're BOILING WATER!? To turn a turbine!? Like a watermill of your ancestors!?"

6

dasnihil t1_izxfsfs wrote

yes, it's not very efficient output method even for fission, but it doesn't even apply to fusion imo.

the energy output of fission is mostly heat, so it makes sense to use it for boiling water, but the energy output of fusion is more diverse including neutrons and alpha particles etc. we're going to need some revolutionary ideas to capture most of the fusion output. it'll just get better once we have a working prototype. just like everything else we've invented and perfected over the years.

5

imnotknow t1_izwzc3w wrote

I'd like to think they would be impressed by our ingenuity

3

2D_VR t1_izweslc wrote

I think in some cases thermal couples can also be used. But yeah steam is pretty robust honestly

4

No_Ask_994 t1_izw68dg wrote

Well I hope that ITER can somehow take advantage of This to be useful. But I guess not (?)

1

EntireContext t1_izwlkbz wrote

Very cool. But it will take long until you have the commercial plant I guess. Also will it beat solar on the roof evonomically ? We'll see...

1

PyreOfDeath97 t1_izy2co8 wrote

I think the idea with fusion is less-so economics and more-so the sheer scale of the things we’ll be able to power with clean energy.

2

EntireContext t1_izy2khg wrote

Economics are a reflection of physical realities. The cheaper it is, the more abundant.

1

PyreOfDeath97 t1_izy31yv wrote

In an ideal world we’d eliminate high energy costs using fusion altogether, but I’m sure politics will come into play at some point and fuck over the consumer

2

EntireContext t1_izy464r wrote

There will always be costs. First there's the cost of constructing and maintaining the reactor. Then the transmission cost of the power through electric lines.

1

iNstein t1_izx84my wrote

Need to get to true break even. They say they got 120% of the power that they fed to the lasers but no men of the huge magnets containing the plasma or the computing required to keep it contained. Also how long did it run, how much if the energy were they actually able to extract and not just observe. It is a nice first step but still a very long way to go and then we have to deal with cost.

1

JVM_ t1_izxy50i wrote

The fuel costs of the nearest nuclear plant to you is about 5-10% of the total cost.

So.

If that 5-10% was now free, how much would that change the cost of building a nuclear plant?

Nuclear fusion sounds great, but the actual 'turn you into Spiderman' bit is pretty small compared to the....

Water -> Electricity turbines, Cooling towers, power distribution systems, all the major electrical lines running to the plant, all the major electrical bits for routing/voltages/disconnects.

We need nuclear fusion, but it won't make unlimited AA batteries or something crazy.

1

DukkyDrake t1_izy7n2l wrote

I followed NIF's progress a decade ago, I stopped when they gave up and went back to nuclear weapons research. I was skeptical and still am of a fusion power plant looking anything like their setup. I think there is at least 1 private effort following their general approach. I fear this is just scientific progress that doesn't necessarily quicken progress to a power plant. But I would be happy if it only serves to boost funding for fusion engineering efforts.

1