r/Physics • u/ProfessionalCat4464 • 15h ago
Question When are we getting fusion energy?
Is it too late by then?
25
u/Arve 15h ago
Commercially viable fusion power has been 20 years away for 70 years
2
u/Annual-Advisor-7916 14h ago
Just like they plan to send humans to mars in the next 3 to 5 years since 1990
-1
u/FizzicalLayer 13h ago
1990 didn't have SpaceX, their technology, their launch tempo, a global network of satellites providing internet, a sports car in orbit, etc.
Promise of fusion != Promise of mars
2
u/Annual-Advisor-7916 11h ago
I never said that those two topics are equal, rather compared the medial claims of a breakthrough in the near future, which both have failed to deliver yet.
Besides that; Nothing SpaceX does is novel and people in 1990 would certainly believe if you told them. We could have shot a car into space in the early 60s, in fact we DROVE a car on the moon in the 60s. I don't quite see why you think that's special.
Satellite internet isn't new either, it just became financially viable for more people because of a steady (and foreseeable) advance in technology.
Using fusion with a significantly positive energy outcome is novel and still very far away. No credible scientist would dare to claim a date where it becomes commercially viable.
0
u/FizzicalLayer 11h ago
lol. Cope harder.
1
u/Annual-Advisor-7916 10h ago
I love unrelated statements like these, but I'm sure your witty comments are perfectly suited for your Fortnite chats.
Besides that; I'm not mad about Musks politics as you claim in the comment above. I'm neither liberal nor from the US. It's just not as surprising as you claim. You seem to have missed a lot of spaceflight history if shooting payload into an uncontrolled orbit impresses you.
Additionally I AM in fact disagreeing with you, because your arguments are blatantly ignorant.
Many people live in their naive pseudo-reality that in a few years technology will solve all their problems which just shows a lack of understanding and is not more than a coping mechanism which is fueled by sensationalistic hype-media. Science isn't spectacular, future developments are foreseeable for years to come usually.
That being said, it would be possible to send people to mars, not worse or better compared to 30 years ago. It's just that there are fundamental problems that make the whole undertaking pointless.
-1
u/FizzicalLayer 10h ago
Ah... so it's envy, then.
1
u/Annual-Advisor-7916 10h ago
Envy of what? There are hundreds of accomplishments NASA/ESA made, you just picked the worst example there is...
Anyways, if you happen to be able to step over your shadow and give the whole matter a second thought, I hope you are listening to actual scientific results instead of clickbait news titles.
The distinction between fundamental problems and engineering problems is important. If you don't want to acknowledge that, you'll be misled often.
1
u/Skalawag2 12h ago
Why are you downvoted? You make an obvious and valid point - believe it or not humans ARE advancing lol. Every response here is sarcastic. I come here for intelligent comments from people smarter than me. Does anybody who actually knows something about current research and tech have an actual response? Geez, disappointing thread..
0
u/FizzicalLayer 11h ago
It makes sense if you read between the lines. They aren't disagreeing with my point, they're mad about the politics of the guy who's doing it. Haters gonna hate.
7
4
5
3
u/warblingContinues 15h ago
When ITER comes online.
0
u/Marklar0 15h ago
In case this is not a joke....ITER is not a power plant and it's design does not have the ability to supply electricity
4
u/Alphons-Terego 14h ago
No, but ITER should be energy positive. Meaning you could build a reactor using almost the same specs, if you decided to do so.
2
u/scientists-rule 14h ago
Physicists should weigh in:
- Tokamak magnetic confinement, plant being built in France
- Laser confinement, via the National Ignition Lab
Will one emerge as a clear winner?
2
u/Skalawag2 12h ago
Thank you for an actually thoughtful response. Buncha goobs milking a few upvotes in here..
2
u/clintontg 13h ago
Commonwealth Fusion Systems plan to have their prototype up and running in 2027 I believe. Followed by net energy in the 2030s. If their approach works and we can solve issues surrounding capturing the energy of fast neutrons then maybe by 2040s. But these are ideal scenarios, I'm not so confident that I can tell you it will definitely happen at all. I think it's worth pursuing though.
4
u/mead128 15h ago
It's called solar power.
1
u/Skalawag2 12h ago
Solar power is great…not a base load supply tho. So, no.
1
u/mead128 11h ago
With our current understanding of materials, fusion generators are just about impossible: Even if you magnetically confine the plasma, the neutrons and gamma rays would still absolutely destroy anything you could make the reactor out of.
... as a bonus, the reactor walls also become highly radioactive, so even if we did do it, the end result would be much closer to what fission is today then the infinite no-consequences power source of science fiction. The only place we've been able to do a significant amount of fusion is in a hydrogen bomb: The polar opposite of a good base-load generator: a device that runs for nanoseconds and releases lots of radioactive junk in the process.
It is possible that we might someday find some magical heat-proof, pressure-proof, neutron-proof material, but it's impossible to say when that will happen: Might be next week or perhaps never.
1
u/Skalawag2 11h ago
Sounds like a good time.. I was hoping to read more about some specific issues that researchers are working on right now in this thread, kinda like the things you mentioned. Saying solar is fusion tho is like saying fission is hydro because it produces steam. (I know you were being facetious)
1
u/bspaghetti Condensed matter physics 15h ago
This is the real answer.
We’veEarth’s had it for billions of years!
1
1
1
1
u/Vojtak_cz 14h ago
Depends on when they are able to make it effective. We do have working reactors and all but its just not profitable and its not like you can tell. At this point we are waiting till someone finds out on how to do it. And thats not somehing you can predict.
1
u/zerothprinciple 14h ago
We already have the technology to safely produce all of our electrical energy needs with fission. So sometime after that happens.
1
u/FizzicalLayer 13h ago
The obsession with an estimate for when something will happen that we've never done before is beyond stupid. We have an objective. We're learning lots of stuff and developing (what we hope) are enabling technologies. Giving an estimate is for public relations, politics and funding purposes only. Don't build a data center next to a field with a "Future site of Fusion Plant 27! Coming Fall, 2048" sign and be disappointed when there's nothing to hook up to.
1
1
0
u/Banes_Addiction 14h ago
It will never be too late, and it already is.
The climate is already fucked, but it will help for us to stop making it worse as soon as possible. And fusion solves more problems than just climate - no more conflicts over oil for example.
As for when, all physicists make the same joke: 30 years away for the last 70 years. The numbers just change depending who you ask.
16
u/jetstobrazil 15h ago
Sept 19 2032, unfortunately it will be defunded and won’t be available for another 36,000 years after humans rebuild society.