Quoting CNN report: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/12/politics/nuclear-fusion-energy-us-scientists-climate/index.html
"For the first time ever, US scientists at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California successfully produced a nuclear fusion reaction resulting in a net energy gain, a source familiar with the project confirmed to CNN.
The US Department of Energy is expected to officially announce the breakthrough Tuesday."
We all know what All Mankind have been through for the last decades, of which the climate change, energy crisis, etc. have always been pains in the neck. They directly or indirectly caused the shortage, inflation, supply-chain disruptions, regional/global economic crisis, or even escalated conflicts. Now, here comes a promising solution! (I personally suppose such an incredible scientific breakthrough deserves multiple Nobel Prizes!)
Assuming this major scientific breakthrough is solid and safe. Here come more interesting questions that are perhaps worth our attention and discussion:
1. How long would it take for this scientific breakthrough to be transferred to engineering deployment and energy usage in our daily life? < 10 years, 10-30 years, 30 - 50 years, or > 50 years?
2. What could you think of the pros/cons of this breakthrough (e.g., would it help mitigate the climate change, poverty issues, and regional/global conflicts over energy and resources? ), and what should be first done before the deployment? Legislation, international treaties, environmental protection, and/or etc.?
3. How do you think this breakthrough will accelerate all mankind to the Type-I Civilization (according to Kardashev Scale) and become a Spaceborne Civilization/Species?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale)
4. What would be your thoughts/ideas/advice/suggestions/opinions on this breakthrough and how it can better serve all mankind?
I think the Kardashev scale is interesting speculation, but not something that can realistically be attained. Although satisfying most of our energy requirements by fusion will be good environmentally, the total amount of energy produced is in the end still limited by the temperature increase it causes. Thermodynamically even "green" energy ends up as heat.
1. The reports of this event are missing the rather obvious fact that the laser energy delivered was indeed surpassed by the thermal energy from the pellet, but that the lasers are inherently ~1% efficient.
In terms of the net power used to drive the fusion event, barely 1% was recovered as usable heat.
2. Inertial confinement fusion, IMO, is not a viable long-term solution. ITER, by contrast, and other magnetic methods, have a greater chance of providing long-term (properly) net-gain.
3. I see this event as being of no consequence to our progress along the Kardashev scale.
4. That we not be distracted from the urgency of transitioning from a carbon-positive economy by any and all means.
Dear Yiming,
that's an interesting question. However, large-scale commercial use of nuclear fusion still seems decades away (i.e., until it can feed our grids in any substantial way).
As you know, the Kardashev scale has received its fair share of criticism over the years. Let just mention of aspect pertaining to this discussion: I am not sure if energy is useful as a sole indicator, i.e., the sheer total amount of energy a civilization is able to harness from its surroundings. In my view, more appropriate indicators of civilizational "advancement" may be (1) whether a civilization attains planetary sustainability, (2) is able to avoid planetary and cosmic threats (bursts of cosmic radiation, asteroid impacts etc.) and (3) the degree to which it is able to spatially move beyond its home planet.
For all of those three points, I am not sure if energy - alone - is the most important criterion. Just consider, for example, that -according to our current scientific understanding - the speed of light constitutes an absolute upper limit to how fast ANYTHING can move. No matter how much energy you have at your disposal, you will not be able to overcome this bench.
Intellectual-cognitive capacities, scientific understanding and technological advancement may ultimately proove more decisive than the sheer amount of energy available. Just look at humankind: We have discovered an amazing range of different energy sources (fossil, nuclear, renewable, fusion), but still haven't managed to send more than a dozen or so of our race up to our home planet's only moon for more than a couple of hours. And we have held back at such missions for 50 years now...
Just some food for thought...
Best,
Julius
The previous comments well summarize some of the reasons the breakthrough doesn't indicate something that can address the climate problem. I listened Monday to Miles O'Brien, PBS's science expert, on the PBS News Hour discussing the fusion announcement. He ended a good description by saying an old physics joke was the statement:
"The actual practical use of Fusion Energy will take 20 years, and it always will !"
Unfortunately, I believe this is correct. When I came to Los Alamos in 1969 there was a magnetic confinement division called SYLLAC. There is now a related effort using a Tokamak machine in Europe, ITER, which is now about to go on line.
Several decades ago there was a LASER FUSION effort at LanL, smaller than NIF but a similar approach. The group leader of the group studying the theory involved was my best friend. This group was in one of my group's buildings. He told me they felt they had proved that the laser on a D-T pellet would not work in a practical energy production.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India