Like he mentioned, the problem is that by the time we achieve practical fusion (2030s with the MOST optimistic and unrealistic predictions), it's going to be too late to stave off crisis.The question then becomes how many billions of dollars are we willing to pour into fusion, a technology that has no effect on our immediate future, when this money can be used to fund technologies like Solar which can make a realistic impact.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by Hybrid.

Fusion has some great advantages, especially in the power-per-area department, but I still like solar better for a few reasons.

Fusion is an "all or nothing" tech. It takes a very large investment up front before anything significant can be done with it. Solar, on the other hand, is more of an evolutionary process. It already works, so the main goal is lowering cost and increasing efficiency (which is happening pretty quickly these days).

However, I think one of the largest advantages solar has over fusion is that it doesn't require a power grid. Once the cost and efficiency reach a certain level then you can create your own power, which will be huge in remote low-income areas. Villages wouldn't have to wait for their region to invest in a reactor or worry about power distribution being damaged.

Fusion is great and will greatly benefit the world, but I don't think it's our best option at this point.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.

The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.

If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?
>> ^Psychologic:
Fusion has some great advantages, especially in the power-per-area department, but I still like solar better for a few reasons.
Fusion is an "all or nothing" tech. It takes a very large investment up front before anything significant can be done with it. Solar, on the other hand, is more of an evolutionary process. It already works, so the main goal is lowering cost and increasing efficiency (which is happening pretty quickly these days).
However, I think one of the largest advantages solar has over fusion is that it doesn't require a power grid. Once the cost and efficiency reach a certain level then you can create your own power, which will be huge in remote low-income areas. Villages wouldn't have to wait for their region to invest in a reactor or worry about power distribution being damaged.
Fusion is great and will greatly benefit the world, but I don't think it's our best option at this point.

To be fair, solar is coming along a lot faster than heavy panels with low life span - though i don't know what they're made of anymore. There's been a sift recently about "spray on" solar cells i think. Or at least i read about it.

I was hoping for a lot more detail from this video.

@dag
The problem with fission is resources. There just isn't that much fiisile material for long term use. He mentions this issue in passing in the talk but it's actually really important.

I can already see the sweatshops, millions of Tiawanese children dismantling lithium, paid by the proton.

I wish there was a few more details on the technical difficulties as really I've heard much of this before in pop science programmes.

"irrational nuclear fears" I got em.... kinna shell-shocked from our progress to date with arcane applications-Solar is getting easier to mass produce, but not half as fast as the barons, sheiks, coveters and inbreds that have been more concerned with empire than having us all taken care of.....mother nature is on a righteous path though, she may trump all the pitiful efforts of humans-This guy Analog in a digital world does not empress..not half as much as the cat on the TED talk soberly proposing scenarios that will make us all the bitches of robotics and nanotech.

No fusion is not "IS" energy's future...it MAY be

The problem to me with a fusion plant is the energy density. If a catastrophe were to happen, how much of a city would go with it...or how much of a country? I have always liked the idea of everything being its own power station.

>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?


Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.

Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Sure, nuclear reactors are expensive- but keep in mind that they've been sidelined in funding because they are NIMBY bogey man. Most of the problems you cite have been fixed in new model Thorium reactors (half-life is only 500 years, waste is small amount and they actually eat old types of nuclear waste for fuel!)

I'm not sure about that solar panel lifespan- I'm just going by someone I know who has them installed- it may have been the lead acid batteries that they had to swap out ever 5 years or so. Regardless, photovoltaic cell manufacture is a dirty fab process similar to chips- lots of toxic non-recyclable metals and burning a good deal of CO2.

I'm behind new-nuclear as a sensible stop-gap until fusion comes online.

.>> ^curiousity:
>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?

Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.
Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

>> ^Fade:

The problem with fission is resources. There just isn't that much fiisile material for long term use. He mentions this issue in passing in the talk but it's actually really important.

Not true for Liquid Flouride Thorium reactors. Thorium is abundant everywhere on the planet, it's cheap to mine and doesn't require costly processing like uranium. LFT reactors also produce a fraction of the waste byproducts that current fission techonology produces, the byproducts are not suitable for weaponizing, the waste only needs to be stored for 300 years instead of 10,000 and you can even use LFT reactors to burn radioactive byproducts from current fission reactors. It's also a proven technology. We know it works.

Thorium reactors were not developed when fission energy began in this country precisely because you could not make weapons out of the waste material. Considering it's relative safety (it's a self stabilizing reaction) there are essentially no rational reasons not to use LFT fission reactors today.

Dag -

Solar power has and will come a long way since it's conception. Remember this is an industry just coming out of its infancy.

The issue about batteries deals with the storage of the energy produced, not the actual production of energy. The currently most popular energy storage device is the battery (which the technology seems to be advancing every year), but there are alternatives to that including: hydrogen gas (a converter splits water and stores the hydrogen gas for later use - either heat or electricity production), compressed air (some energy production facilities use underground caverns pumped full of compressed air and then covert that into energy when needed), or simply a lack of storage by people that tie to an existing electrical grid.

Dannym is quite correct on the new production techniques have advanced. Currently there is a company that has been able to produce solar powered sheets of plastic. They have taken the advances of nanotechnology and applied them to this field. The conversion rate isn't great, but the cost of production are much less than traditional methods. The idea is that it can be made into siding for houses, roof tiling, etc.

I haven't read about the Thorium reactors. I can safely assume that there have been advances in that field in the last 30 years as well. I will look into that. Thanks for the link. I used to work in reactor plants, but had no desire to continue that work in the civilian world. All the nuclear plants in the US are east coast, california, or stuck in the midwest (and a small one in colorado.) I love the pacific northwest and had no desire to be anywhere else. It just something about the mountains and water... and looking across the water to see more mountains. Part of my soul is here and I'd rather not leave that. Oh yeah, a point - I haven't looked into newer designs. And I will look at that information and try to withhold my predisposition towards doubt as I personally think that solar is a much better way to go until we crack the fusion problem. I think that solar should always play a part, even if it is as simple as facing your house to true south with windows and building a trombe wall, eutectic salt chambers, etc. So much less energy would be spent if we focused on a little bit of good engineering in the housing market and conservation.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Good discussion all. And @curiousity, I'm not totally against solar. The flexible "printer roll" stuff that NanoSolar is doing sounds really promising for instance. Just seems that weighing all factors- environment/cost/energy produced/space required - new wave nuclear takes the cake.

@TheFreak - I'm with you man- you're backing up pretty much everything I've read on the thorium reactors and the points I was making above.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The problem to me with a fusion plant is the energy density. If a catastrophe were to happen, how much of a city would go with it...or how much of a country? I have always liked the idea of everything being its own power station.


It's considered not to be a large risk in fusion as the plasma would have little density even though it's volume might be large. You could stop it with a confinement structure (worst scenario). Also there is no risk for a runaway event.

^ Indeed. You may as well worry about the same thing for a fission plant. Chernobyl ring any bells? It doesn't stop us trying to get power from fission, percieved risk (within reason, of course) should never stop humans from trying to extend their reach.

^
^
yeah, even a very high-strung fusion configuration such as a Tokamak wouldn't do much if it went out of control... iirc, the plasma inside a flourescent light is ~45.000 degrees C, but the density is so low that it can be contained in a thin glass tube with no problems.

Also, it's only a couple of months until we get the polywell "WB-8" report, at which point they will hopefully get a lot more funding and achieve breakeven before everyone else .

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The problem to me with a fusion plant is the energy density. If a catastrophe were to happen, how much of a city would go with it...or how much of a country? I have always liked the idea of everything being its own power station.


The danger of fission is radioactivity. All a "meltdown" does, as far as actual damage, is destroy the reactor. However, it can release radioactive isotopes into the environment, which brings enormous health risks. Fission is self-sustaining, so if the containment fails, the reaction can continue. It should also be noted that fission reactors are far safer today than they were in the past.

Fusion does not have this problem. If the system fails then the reaction stops. It might damage the reactor, but even if the magnet exploded (which would only be a local event) there would be no danger to the surrounding area. As far as I know, the only radiation threat would involve tritium, which is only one fuel method for fusion, and even then there would be far less danger than from a fission reaction.

Good discussion guys. I couldn't help but weigh in with my two cents. I think everyone here agrees that this is one issue we need to get right, as there's a lot of investment on the line. While I like most of the options mentioned, I have a preference for passive solar over photovoltaics, just because of the pollution concerns involved. These too can work on a local scale for water heaters, etc. Further, if implemented on a large scale in the southwestern US, it could power most of the country. Nuclear too is an option that should be expanded in the near term, and I don't think the NIMBY problem is as bad as you think. As my father said, in his opposition to the Cape Wind Project... "I'll live next door to a modern nuclear power plant, but those waters have better purposes." Frankly, the opposition to building new plants is just keeping older, unsafe plants online past their safely usable life. It's not like our workforce is busy doing much else right now, let's get building.

Personally I feel like it will become an issue of niche solutions for niche applications. The solution that locally make sense is the one that will be adopted. Rurally, especially in areas with little rainfall, it may be more logical to use your abundant resource, land, to generate your power. In higher density areas, this doesn't make as much sense. This brings up another big issue I thought I heard briefly mentioned which is distribution. HVDC cables, coupled with smart distribution grids leads to HUGE gains in efficiency of distribution. There were also a number of notable energy sources left out of this discussion, such as geothermal (where it applies), algal ethanol/petroleum (perhaps best for their implications on plastics), or, for the super crazy, orbiting solar plants beaming microwave power back to earth (Japan is actually researching this). Geothermal, for instance, may prove critical to reducing industrial emissions. Aluminum manufacturers have already begun using Icelandic geothermal as the refining process is extremely energy intensive, and the end product is quite transportable.

Let's not forget thorium fluoride fission reactors.... compared to the uranium reactors we use we have plenty of fuel, much safer, nuclear waste safe much quicker.

No, I'm pretty sure that means they'll last 25 years and 1 day.

>> ^curiousity:
Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
No, I'm pretty sure that means they'll last 25 years and 1 day.
>> ^curiousity:
Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged.


As normal there are companies that make good products and ones that make bad products. If you don't research the difference between the two, you deserve a product that fails right after its warranty.

How about eliminating Obesity and the energy problem in one hit ?

Free entrence to gyms and the electricity is sold to a local company ?

Interesting. My knowledge on fusion is limited to the basic function of it. I know little to nothing about reaction fusion technology. My brain finds it hard to fathom that harnessing the power of the sun couldn't have volatile reputations. More over, IF one fails, the cost of fixing it and how regularly it would fail are questions that I think are valid. A power station going offline for a year isn't the answer to a power crisis really.

For me, I have always liked the KISS principle to energy. Many small manageable solutions. Granted, I think fusion reactor technology is still smart to look to, but only for our really cool space ships and ray guns (like an ion cannon to clear an escape from Hoth). In other words, there are most likely easier and safer, more reliably ways to get our power...right?

(what I mean basically is this seems like one of those things that will get here when it gets here...but for a good solution now, it is not that. And even when it gets here, it's going to take awhile to get all the kinks out. Solar and hydrogen fuel cells seem like a real solution now that is already very mature and fairly plug and play with current technology.)

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The problem to me with a fusion plant is the energy density. If a catastrophe were to happen, how much of a city would go with it...or how much of a country? I have always liked the idea of everything being its own power station.

The danger of fission is radioactivity. All a "meltdown" does, as far as actual damage, is destroy the reactor. However, it can release radioactive isotopes into the environment, which brings enormous health risks. Fission is self-sustaining, so if the containment fails, the reaction can continue. It should also be noted that fission reactors are far safer today than they were in the past.
Fusion does not have this problem. If the system fails then the reaction stops. It might damage the reactor, but even if the magnet exploded (which would only be a local event) there would be no danger to the surrounding area. As far as I know, the only radiation threat would involve tritium, which is only one fuel method for fusion, and even then there would be far less danger than from a fission reaction.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Interesting. My knowledge on fusion is limited to the basic function of it. I know little to nothing about reaction fusion technology. My brain finds it hard to fathom that harnessing the power of the sun couldn't have volatile reputations.
Actually the Sun is a very inefficient form of Fusion. The power output of the sun is 3.846×10^26W, the volume of the Sun is 1.412×10^27 m3. So the output of the sun is only 0.27W per cubic meter of sun.


Another interesting fact is that the Sun loses 7 million tons of mass every second. 4 million is converted to energy via e=mc^2 and 3 million tons are lost to the solar wind. However at the end of the Sun's 10 billion year lifetime it will have lost less than 1% of its mass. Truly astronomical numbers

Fission or Fusion I support.

Solar: I don't see the harm in using it regionally or locally where it makes geographic sense (places like deserts). But Solar will never in a bazillion years be able to serve as the primary power source for the human population. Statistically, human power needs peak and trough at irregular times that are unsupportable by direct feed power from solar energy. The only solution is to over-produce solar energy in massive quantities and store it in batteries. Batteries are far more 'dirty' than coal or gas. No. Solar is a curiosity - not a solution. Any power source that will serve as the world's primary power source must be able to deal with human power demands in a 'real world' manner - and solar ain't it. Same goes for wind.

Hydrogen cells: Haw haw! You can't change the laws of physics. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon or pure hydrogen. The energy compression exchange is too poor for hydrogen to be a power source for anything except a very large vehicle like a bus, or land-locked structures with specific, predictable power needs. Refining & compressing hydrogen to the point where it is usable as a 'fuel' for large populations is more energy expensive than burning wood.

by the time we achieve practical fusion it's going to be too late to stave off crisis

Stave off 'the crisis'... What crisis? There is enough oil on the planet to keep going another 80 years without even touching stuff like shale. If you go with shale then Earth can go 200+ years. There is no 'crisis' in terms of fossil fuels. Or are you talking about the AGW boogeyman that is routinely and consistently being proven to be a complete fabrication?