Nuclear Fusion May Be Nearer Than You Think

[OnlinePoker]

According to Pitchbook Data, the dominant category of what constitutes Clean Energy Generation is solar energy, which has attracted more than half of all venture capital investments since 2015. In that period, nuclear fusion energy barely attracted one-fifth of investments - until 2021. But in September of last year, fusion energy’s share of capital raised shot up to 35%.

To date, out of 42 startups that Pitchbook identifies in the field of nuclear fusion, only a handful has taken in the lion’s share of capital. Commonwealth Fusion Systems leads the way with US$2.06 billion of capital raised to this day, followed by TAE Technologies, with US$1.35 billion. Five other companies have raised amounts above US$ 100 million, according to the latest Fusion Industry Association report. Helion Energy has raised US$ 577 million, General Fusion, US$ 300 million, Tokamak Energy, US$ 250 million, and ENN and ZAP Energy, US$ 200 million each. The total capital raised to date amounts to US$ 4.86 billion.

Today, fusion energy is considered one of the key technologies capable of leading us to a net-zero future, with the International Atomic Energy Association ranking it “among the most environmentally friendly sources of energy.” The Fusion Energy Council of Canada lists a few of fusion’s major advantages: unlimited fuel availability, highest energy ratio and density, and minimal environmental impact with “no continuous production of radioactive waste.”

https://www.morningstar.ca/ca/news/227636/nuclear-fusion-may-be-nearer-than-you-think.aspx

[303squadron]

1. Holy Oak Island, Batman

From the article:

“Before we talk of any commercial application, the physics must be demonstrated,” asserts Michael Campbell, until recently Director of the Laboratory of Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester. What he calls “physics” is the achievement of greater energy output than input, something that remains to be accomplished in a sustainable manner.

[NNadir]

2. I've attended too many lectures at PPPL to want to hold my breath...

...for this one.

Throwing money at something does not make it work.

We've thrown trillions at popular solar and wind energy for no environmental result.

[StevieM]

7. Let's suppose fusion will be ready to work, and be affordable, by the turn of the century.

Perhaps fusion's role will be to take part in that massive geoengineering project that we will need. Maybe a plan that utilizes nuclear fusion, along with nuclear fission, will turn out to be the best method of trying to suck all that carbon and methane back in.

[NNadir]

9. A problem in addressing climate change is that...

...there is too much futurism. It's a common technique used by the morons at Greenpeace, "by 'such and such' year."

Fusion advocates have been over promising and under delivering in just this way for more than half a century but at least their vision is not reactionary. We abandoned so called "renewable energy" in the 19th century, except among the impoverished. We may at some point develop fusion; this said, we cannot rely on doing so. The most attractive feature is the extreme energy to mass ration, but the materials science issues, as well as heat exchange, remain problematic, even beyond the physics of sustainable confinement.

The best understood technologically available energy density materials are the actinides. There are none better. We may refine fission energy on the fly, adapt it various ways, but it is what we have as opposed to for what we hope.

Climate change isn't "some day." It's now. Extreme heat is killing ecosystems, crops and people, now. We need to build nuclear fission plants as fast as is possible. We have a historic record of fast construction. We need to repeat that success albeit it on a much greater scale.

[StevieM]

10. I don't disagree with what you are advocating for.

But I think we both know that we won't wind up doing the right thing. We will probably do the wrong thing for quite some time, just like we are doing the wrong thing at the current time.

It may turn out that by the time we smarten up and get our energy almost entirely from nuclear fission, we will already have locked in 3 degrees of warming. At that point the feedback loops will kick in and the warming will continue, regardless of where we get our energy.

If that turns out to be the case then we will need a geoengineering plan. I believe you once said that nuclear power was the one method that was "just barely on the edge of feasibility," or something to that effect.

[NNadir]

11. I have felt for a long time that direct air capture, even better, seawater capture, is on the...

...edge of feasibility, but only with prodigious amounts of energy. Basically, it would involve the reverse of combustion, with the carbon utilized in products, not dumps. This means that a generation doing this would need to produce all of the energy that was released when the fossil fuels were burned and extra energy to overcome the entropy of mixing.

The high temperature reformation or pyrolysis of waste or cultivated biomass would only suffice on a small level. The carbon we've dumped in the last century and this century represents many millions of years of fixation by photosynthesis.

Powered by nuclear fission with very high thermodynamic efficiency, it is in my view - and I may be wrong - on the edge of feasibility, by no means easy or a slam dunk. It's still a long shot, particularly in a time where ignorance is growing in popularity, not declining.

[Vogon_Glory]

4. I'd be delighted if this proved true, but

I’ve been waiting for the development of a successful commercial fusion reaction since high school. That was back in the early 1970’s.

Show us!

[Duppers]

5. Exactly.

[Native]

6. Super interesting article. Thanks for posting.

[hunter]

8. I've quipped before, if I knew the secret of clean, cheap, fusion power I'd keep it a secret.

If we humans had a power source like that we'd probably eat the entire earth, followed by the solar system itself.

That used to be one of my reasons for opposing nuclear fission power. It works.

Eventually I recognized how dependent our civilization has become on high density energy resources. Renewable energy isn't capable of supporting all eight billion of us. If we quit fossil fuels for renewable energy today billions of us will suffer and die for lack of resources, mostly food resources. If we don't quit fossil fuels billions of us are going to suffer and die by climate change.

Nuclear power is inexpensive enough to support us all, but hopefully too expensive to support a great binge of consumerism and population growth, as fossil fuels did.

Nevertheless, if anyone gets a fusion power plant working in the next fifty years I doubt it will have any economic or environmental advantages compared to 21st century fission plants.

This seems to be another one of those carrots hanging in front of us that will only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels. We have all the tools we need to quit fossil fuels now. We just have to do it.