NationStates Jolt Archive

Suppose the world needed incredible amounts of energy within a generation. As to why, imagine whatever scenario you find compelling. The question is, if world leaders and the public in general understood the need and the timeline, what would be the odds that a combined global effort could yield cost-effective fusion energy in 20 years?

If scientists from every university, lab, institute, and goverment research compound had a free hand to work together and collaborate on every aspect of the problem, from materials engineering, containment, IT, physics, chemistry, nanorobotics, and any other discipline that could contribute, could it be done?

Maybe. Fusion in general isn't that big of a deal. It's getting everything put into it back out with something useful to spare in a managable reaction. It's one of the many areas of science that could really benefit from an Einstien right about now. Science also has some tendency to proceed in fits and starts. And things reinforce each other in odd ways.

One best bet might be to push hard for mass produced quantum computers, and photonic computers in attempt to brute force our way out of some of the more difficult problems.

Or high energy plasma physics by building the super collider once planed for Texas. Not only would it provide expertise in the maufacture of huge superconductors, the mysteries revealed might begin to cause certain standouts in string theory to present themselves. Refining Quantum electrodynamics and perhaps even superconductors in the process.

Heavy ultra sensitive telescopes launched into orbits far away from the glare of earth and the moon, or laser inferometers looking for gravity waves might do the same.

Even biology, and harnessing neurons to perform as elements of CPUs.

Really cheap, easy to make, highly efficent photovoltaics might obviate the need for fusion in all but propultion applications.

It's a mixed bag, best to do it all.

Sounds great, I'm all for it, but do we have the resources to do it all? Will the public allow for the scientific funding to do it all? I don't know how it is globally, but I'm willing to bet we in the US spend more on NASCAR than on Fusion research. If I'm wrong (and I hope I am), somebody could post a link showing otherwise, I'd sleep better.

Sounds great, I'm all for it, but do we have the resources to do it all? Will the public allow for the scientific funding to do it all? I don't know how it is globally, but I'm willing to bet we in the US spend more on NASCAR than on Fusion research. If I'm wrong (and I hope I am), somebody could post a link showing otherwise, I'd sleep better.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but the Yankees annual pay roll is probably higher than the amount spent on Fusion research in the USA.

Could we make it work if we wanted to. Probably. There is very little that can not be solved if there is a genuine will and desire to do so. The remaining problems and difficulties are a lot less than those that existed in 1961 of putting a man on the moon. The answer is only probably rather than definitely because I am hedging my bets.

The real stopper is the absence of any public interest/desire.

Little known fact - the method that is probably going to come closest first (long before the ITER project) is the Magnetized Target Fusion effort at Los Alamos.

Of course, it's also the method most decried by the Europeans, since it's perfect for making and testing fusion weapons that don't require a fission trigger. Theoretically, it would be possible to use MTF to build extremely clean mini-nukes.

If the world really wanted (and stopped wasting resources on pointless wars and other conflicts), yes, seeing as they've already reached the critical point where they produce as much energy as they use.

We've already made fusion work. Remember Bikini atol? The only hurdle we have to jump is to make the reaction continuous and controlable. I'm sure it can be done.

We've already made fusion work. Remember Bikini atol? The only hurdle we have to jump is to make the reaction continuous and controlable. I'm sure it can be done.

Sorry, I should've clarified what I meant by "fusion". I meant using fusion to supply public and commercial energy with a strong EROEI, such that would allow for reasonably affordable power. So, to my mind, the hurdle isn't just doing it, but doing it cheaply enough that it becomes cost-effective.

Ideally, I would hope there would be a trend similar to that in computers, whereby broad applications and popular adoption would cause the technology to become ever more effective and ever cheaper (per unit of productivity).

Wih such a focused effort, it could be possible in 8 to 10 years. Now, about the funding question... Here is my answer: :headbang:

Interesting. There seems to be some consensus that the technical aspect is entirely surmountable. What I'm hearing then, is a question of financial or political will.

So, Question Part B:

What events or conditions in society, global or national, would bring about sincere motivation among the public to support fusion (or any alt-energy tech that you think would solve the problem)?

Little known fact - the method that is probably going to come closest first (long before the ITER project) is the Magnetized Target Fusion effort at Los Alamos.

Of course, it's also the method most decried by the Europeans, since it's perfect for making and testing fusion weapons that don't require a fission trigger. Theoretically, it would be possible to use MTF to build extremely clean mini-nukes.
They should stop building nuclear weapons and work with CERN to build fusion reactors.

Sounds great, I'm all for it, but do we have the resources to do it all? Will the public allow for the scientific funding to do it all? I don't know how it is globally, but I'm willing to bet we in the US spend more on NASCAR than on Fusion research. If I'm wrong (and I hope I am), somebody could post a link showing otherwise, I'd sleep better.
We're doing it all now. When one considers the elements more or less adjacent to fusion research that's part of maintaining nuclear weapons at Los Alamos, ITER and high energy research, all total it's probably bigger than Nascar. But not by a whole lot.

When you consider other elements which feed into fusion as a viable energy, far far more. The thing that it's difficult to keep ones eye on is the research actually pays for itself, by creating new commerical activities. The problem with trying to shoe horn everything in to one area is that people have specialized. It's not like you cas say, well I'm a brillaint molecular biologist, and its time to be an authority on fusion. And there is bleed over in a lot of disciplines, too, but it's really impossible to do a lot of gaming of the future may hold.

In a free and open capitalist society, it's probably best for government to focus on less commercial pure research on fundemental problems. The things that are very esoteric with no obvious promise of pay off, leaving the market to concentrate on more commercial applications.

When Einstein wrote his paper on the photo-electric effect, no one said, "A ha! Microchips, and lasers!!!" When they read his paper on Brownian motion no economists said, "Eureka! Options pricing!" When it came to special relativity there were no dreams of GPS.

The technology doesn't exist yet, and there's nothing to suggest it won't. It just that the tools take an extraordinary amount of cunning to craft, and many of the wrong answers have yet to be eliminated. Throwing more money at the problem won't necessarily bring to to heel faster.

They should stop building nuclear weapons and work with CERN to build fusion reactors.

MTF is an effort to build commercial fusion reactors. It's just that the Europeans don't want to use an easier, proven method that will achieve breakeven far sooner in a far smaller package - you'll be able to fit an MTF reactor into a bedroom.

The main reason that the Europeans are avoiding MTF is that it is dual use. No one can lug around a tokamak the size of a warehouse (which is the ITER concept) that costs 20 billion dollars just to put together.

Apparently, the Americans want something that works, sooner, smaller, cheaper, and they don't care if it's dual use.