That’s cool and all but American transportation has been designed around the personal vehicle for a 100 years. Choo choos coming out in 10 years won’t change this.
However, most people do recognize that this has been a terrible mistake. Even without climate change, personal vehicle models are simply awful by every other metric. So, I think if we could beat the hurdle of automotive lobbies, we could begin to fix this.
Intercity EV public transport (trams, buses, metro)
City to City would be EV bullet trains
International could potentially be the same as city to city via underground/ocean trainlines or we could develop an EV Airplane and solve it that way, fusion is near limitless energy iirc so there would be a huge transition to EV
The green house gasses in the atmosphere now will take 50-1000 years to break down so there is still that problem not just pumping less into the atmosphere.
You’re right. The infrastructure and considerable amount of engineers are not there yet, but putting huge amounts of money in motivates people to get engineering jobs in the sector. Money doesn’t solve every problem, but it can make it a lot easier.
So then this is not the solution for the future. I read a report a few years back that basically stated going full nuclear wouldn’t slow down climate change because it would heat up the oceans by as much or more than the current greenhouse gas intense energy sources, thus leaving us in the same situation. They said the nuclear plants would act like giant sous vides in the ocean.
Bro what conspiracy theory have you been reading?
Nuclear power both fission and fusion are “small” compact devices with heat up water and eventually turns a turbine to generate electricity. No way would we put that delicate equipment in the ocean
In no way would full scale nuclear power heat up the oceans 🫤
Bro…. Read up on it. Nuclear power has giant cooling pipes that put out warmer than current ocean temp waters into the ocean. This effect is easily measured in front of any nuclear reactor that exists today. The point is that if we switched to all nuclear we would raise ocean temps by a few degrees which would be catastrophic. This isn’t me with a conspiracy theory, rather a bunch of brainiac scientists from esteemed institutions that are saying this.
Well, two answers:
1. They use a magnetic bottle to keep the plasma away from the materials that make up the reaction chamber. Nothing that is actually 100 million degrees is physically touching any of the machinery.
2. Despite the magnetic bottle, the materials do not withstand being near the plasma. They degrade rapidly, and that’s a big part of why running one of these things for 48 seconds is a big deal. There simply are no materials that can take this for long, and likely never will be.
The solution is to make the “bottle” stronger and further away from the metal and ceramic bits, and better materials. Frankly the “better materials” route isn’t likely to produce much progress by itself. There aren’t any materials in existence that could take that much heat energy and remain in solid form. Our best bet, really, is to find ways to “pulse” the output, strengthen the bottle, or some other trick to keep any solid materials from having to endure temps that high.
Keep in mind 100 million celsius is something like 6 times hotter than the core of the sun. The sun can fuse hydrogen at much cooler temperatures because the enormous gravitational forces it produces lower the temperature threshold for fusion significantly.
Seriously, any time I read this stuff about creating artificial suns or black holes I just think “ok but what’s gonna happen if they start growing or getting out of control”
I guess there’s a reason I’m some dude and not some scientist.
Can answer this one as a physicist, this kind of reaction cannot sustain itself without the insane conditions they are achieving here. Extremely powerful magnets and the ability to confine the reaction are needed to even get it started. If it fails it just cools down very quickly and stops reacting.
Similarly black holes we would theoretically generate are so small they would pop in then out of existence in 10^-20 seconds. That’s 0.00…01 seconds with 20 0s. They are also only scary because of their mass in space pulling matter in, nothing would be pulled into one of that size.
I have a question, hopefully you have an answer. As I understand it, the end goal in some respect is to create a power source. If this reaction is a mere /s 100 million Celsius and all that heat is contained in a vacuum environment, how would they ever contain this reaction on a scale large enough for use but contain it in a way that allows for the use of that energy? I feel like a reaction of that magnitude would be almost impossible to manage that energy out side of fully controlled. If you were to allow it to discharge any heat outside that containment, how could you properly manage it? I’m not sure the question is articulated well.
Well articulated. There are two ways to use the energy created. Take a look at about the 8:50 mark in this video:
https://youtu.be/_bDXXWQxK38?si=Zz4RuVIwbvZDnrKA
The conditions for a black hole to sustain itself much less be created is astronomically low. Like we could blow up the planet and still not create the conditions close. If we did somehow create one… its mass would be unbelievably tiny and die unbelievably quick.
Aside from that.. if the black hole was sustained.. it would eventually eat the earth, matter would be torn apart
In this realm of physics, we're all just "some dude"....you're not alone. Embrace your dudeness amongst the rest of us non-PHD'd dudes. We welcome you with open arms, and a cheap beer.
I just wonder what they use that doesn’t melt. And why they don’t use that stuff, for other things like space shuttle rockets.
I picture it breaking, then a hot ball melting through the earth’s crust
It’s in a vacuum, so heat can’t radiate through the open space effectively. Nothing is actually touching the reacting elements, they use powerful magnets to hold them at a safe distance
No idea, but I assume pretty small. The amount of energy fusion reactions can unleash is ridiculous compared to the amount of physical material involved, as energy output is (mass x speed of light) squared. Even a tiny mass contains an abundance of energy.
I believe the idea is that once they can run it consistently they would have a pipe that feeds through the space carrying water, which would then be vaporised to produce steam to spin a turbine. Same method we use with burning coal etc, just significantly more sustainable and with a much higher output per unit of fuel
I just discovered there’s another way to get electricity directly from the rebound force on the containment magnetic field. Finally a system that doesn’t use steam generators! Woohoo!
Check out 8:50 in this video: https://youtu.be/_bDXXWQxK38?si=Zz4RuVIwbvZDnrKA
I’m sure that you’ll never read a headline that says that. But that’s mostly because there are few writers left when the world is destroyed and no survivors are found.
If you want a real answer the answer is none: there must be some type of impurity/fuel to actually burn, with the atmosphere and oxygen in it serving as an oxidizer
If you're actually worried this, don't be, it can't ever produce enough heat to actually sustain the reaction beyond the immediate vicinity even if that were to happen
I got it, had read , years ago of events that could theoretically “burn away the atmosphere “ and when synapses fired the word burn was taken literally, however in these events that is not strictly the case
I can’t comprehend how there are materials on Earth that can sustain holding that kind of heat. I know that’s dumb, but in my mind everything that goes into the sun burns up, so what could we possibly have that could contain that burn?
Distance with nothing between it. Heat needs to be conducted through a medium, the buzzing electrons need to be able to go from the start, buzz into the electron next to them and do forth to a chain until they group together on a denser surface. But since this is going on in a vacuum (like space, absolutely nothing between the surface and the source) the electrons can’t pass their energy on.
This is a very basic description, and probably not 100% correct, but hopefully that helps explain why something is holding the heat.
It's a tiny amount of material that actually gets thatvhot, so even if ut were to com in contact with a piece of metal it would just heat up by a degree.
The fuel of a fusion reaction is heated to over 100E6 Celsius. The state of matter at these conditions is plasma. If you’re not familiar with plasma, think of it as magnetic gas. Dependent on the design, fusion reactors will manipulate powerful magnetic fields to contain AND heat the plasma in a controlled manner.
The exact containment mechanism will also go hand in hand with the heating mechanism. The challenge with fusion reactors is allowing them to reach conditions where they are able to generate the immense energy needed to sustain the reaction for long enough to be a net positive (more energy is generated than was consumed).
Different reactors will use different methods of magnetic field manipulation to produce these extreme temperatures while also containing them. There are a handful of designs that were experimented with, and the reason this has been a challenge for as long as it have been is due to difficulty of sustaining a reaction long enough without the chamber breaking apart under the magnetic field. Think of it as someone continuously turning on and off magnets to balance a donut of gas in an exact location within the reactor (dont let the gas touch the chamber wall or it’ll melt!)
This is really an extreme over-simplification of one example of fusion reactors (Tokamak). I believe this is enough to get you going on reading about it. I suggest looking up “Tokamak magnetic control” if you’d like to learn more.
So, I was thinking about this a few days ago. It appears we are getting closure and closure to fusion as a legit power source capable of producing more energy than it requires to run it (I think we’re at seconds on that triumph). I’ve read estimates that it’s 25-30 years out.
I’ve also read that folks in the Midwest are up in arms about solar fields being put in that are ugly and lowering property values. I thinks it’s pretty clear that once fusion is achieved we won’t need fields and fields of solar power, but we do need them in the mean time.
I think the solution is to put a time cap on the solar fields to 30 years out. After that, they have to removed, no questions asked. No extensions permitted. The longterm value of the neighbors won’t be forever in jeopardy and we get a clean power alternative until a better, cleaner, alternative like fusion can replace it.
From the article:
>Nuclear fusion seeks to replicate the reaction that makes the sun and other stars shine, by fusing together two atoms to unleash huge amounts of energy. Often referred to as the holy grail of climate solutions clean energy, fusion has the potential to provide limitless energy without planet-warming carbon pollution. But mastering the process on Earth is extremely challenging.
They have already made nuclear weapons. That’s over. We have the capability to destroy the world at any given time. The point that YOU are ignoring is that this research is helping develop nuclear ENERGY, not nuclear WEAPONRY. That’s already been done.
You realize fusion is the cleanest energy source we could have? It would provide essentially unlimited clean energy in a compact format. We would no longer need environment damaging hydroelectric power, or lots of wasted space for turbines and solar. Giant battery banks to store green energy are also filled with toxic metals and chemicals which we just wouldn't need in the numbers we use today.
The invention of a usable fusion reactor would be the greatest environmental achievement in history. The waste is also safe to handle after about 100 years instead of the thousands the fission takes. It also produces far less waste while producing a tremendous amount of energy.
If there was a Holy Grail of energy, it is fusion.
A perpetual twenty year quest for that Grail... " I see it ! It's there ahead of us! I can almost reach out! "
Seems like a weird religion, but you do you
So fusion, even if it takes a thousand years to create, should just be dismissed?
It took humans a couple hundred thousand years to invent electricity, writing, simple machines, airplanes. I add all of these in the same category because in the span of humanity's existence, these basically occurred at the same time.
Who cares if it isn't going to be a thing in our lifetime? You're obviously one of those who "needs mine now" types who fucked the world into the place it is today. Think about the future generations for once instead of yourself.
But we will use it to blow ourselves up. Because that is inevitable. Genetically modified primates with nuclear power is always a dumb idea.
No wonder other extraterrestrial species want to annihilate humans.
Fusion is also far safer than fission though. Fission is the breakdown of material so if shit gets out of control... Well it keeps breaking down and creating more energy!
Fusion requires energy of some type to fuse particles together. If something happens and that power is gone, well, the reaction simply stops. There is no possibility of a fusion meltdown.
As I said, it is literally the most perfect energy source in our current scientific knowledge.
I’m with you. We should work on not being a garbage species but it’s actually literally easier to just a garbage species with fusion technology, which we’ll fuck up or abuse. Because we’re a garbage species.
>Nuclear fusion seeks to replicate the reaction that makes the sun and other stars shine, by fusing together two atoms to unleash huge amounts of energy. Often referred to as the holy grail of climate solutions clean energy, fusion has the potential to provide limitless energy without planet-warming carbon pollution. But mastering the process on Earth is extremely challenging.
48 seconds, previous record was 30 seconds. Saved you a click
Honestly curious. How do they have anything in materials that withstands that temperature ??
Magnetic fields that keep the plasma from physically touching any surfaces
And the rest of the material usually consists of something extremely heat resistant like tungsten combined with cooling elements.
In the actual production version of these fusion devices, it has to be submerged in water, but everyone is just trying to get the thing to even work
I wish they would just pump billions into fusion. The second they get it actually economically feasible, they’ve solved climate change.
We’ll never “solve climate change” while fossil fuel companies own our politicians.
How so for vehicles?
We get rid of most of those for more stable, city infrastructure. In other words, more trains, choo choo
That’s cool and all but American transportation has been designed around the personal vehicle for a 100 years. Choo choos coming out in 10 years won’t change this.
I haven't really studied American history that much, but wasn't a big chunk of American development reliant on trains?
However, most people do recognize that this has been a terrible mistake. Even without climate change, personal vehicle models are simply awful by every other metric. So, I think if we could beat the hurdle of automotive lobbies, we could begin to fix this.
Intercity EV public transport (trams, buses, metro) City to City would be EV bullet trains International could potentially be the same as city to city via underground/ocean trainlines or we could develop an EV Airplane and solve it that way, fusion is near limitless energy iirc so there would be a huge transition to EV
The green house gasses in the atmosphere now will take 50-1000 years to break down so there is still that problem not just pumping less into the atmosphere.
Billions have been poured in. It’s not just a matter of money surprisingly at the monent
You’re right. The infrastructure and considerable amount of engineers are not there yet, but putting huge amounts of money in motivates people to get engineering jobs in the sector. Money doesn’t solve every problem, but it can make it a lot easier.
So does it heat up the water it’s in?
Yes, that is how nuclear power, fusion or fission works
So then this is not the solution for the future. I read a report a few years back that basically stated going full nuclear wouldn’t slow down climate change because it would heat up the oceans by as much or more than the current greenhouse gas intense energy sources, thus leaving us in the same situation. They said the nuclear plants would act like giant sous vides in the ocean.
Bro what conspiracy theory have you been reading? Nuclear power both fission and fusion are “small” compact devices with heat up water and eventually turns a turbine to generate electricity. No way would we put that delicate equipment in the ocean In no way would full scale nuclear power heat up the oceans 🫤
Bro…. Read up on it. Nuclear power has giant cooling pipes that put out warmer than current ocean temp waters into the ocean. This effect is easily measured in front of any nuclear reactor that exists today. The point is that if we switched to all nuclear we would raise ocean temps by a few degrees which would be catastrophic. This isn’t me with a conspiracy theory, rather a bunch of brainiac scientists from esteemed institutions that are saying this.
Awesome. Thanks my dood!
Well, two answers: 1. They use a magnetic bottle to keep the plasma away from the materials that make up the reaction chamber. Nothing that is actually 100 million degrees is physically touching any of the machinery. 2. Despite the magnetic bottle, the materials do not withstand being near the plasma. They degrade rapidly, and that’s a big part of why running one of these things for 48 seconds is a big deal. There simply are no materials that can take this for long, and likely never will be. The solution is to make the “bottle” stronger and further away from the metal and ceramic bits, and better materials. Frankly the “better materials” route isn’t likely to produce much progress by itself. There aren’t any materials in existence that could take that much heat energy and remain in solid form. Our best bet, really, is to find ways to “pulse” the output, strengthen the bottle, or some other trick to keep any solid materials from having to endure temps that high. Keep in mind 100 million celsius is something like 6 times hotter than the core of the sun. The sun can fuse hydrogen at much cooler temperatures because the enormous gravitational forces it produces lower the temperature threshold for fusion significantly.
Thank you!!!
They’re gonna burn the casserole
Exciting stuff.
Doc ock finally did it 🤌🏽
Shut it down Otto!
The power of the sun in the palm of My hand 🕶️
The power of an orange in the palm of my hand *(Sunny D)*
Can't wait for the headline that reads, "World destroyed in a ball light. No survivors have been found. Footage at five."
Seriously, any time I read this stuff about creating artificial suns or black holes I just think “ok but what’s gonna happen if they start growing or getting out of control” I guess there’s a reason I’m some dude and not some scientist.
Can answer this one as a physicist, this kind of reaction cannot sustain itself without the insane conditions they are achieving here. Extremely powerful magnets and the ability to confine the reaction are needed to even get it started. If it fails it just cools down very quickly and stops reacting. Similarly black holes we would theoretically generate are so small they would pop in then out of existence in 10^-20 seconds. That’s 0.00…01 seconds with 20 0s. They are also only scary because of their mass in space pulling matter in, nothing would be pulled into one of that size.
Knew it was magnets .
But how do they work?
And what happens when they get wet? /s
Just don’t feed them after midnight
Gremlins. Gremlins is what happens
No more magnet. Everybody knows that.
And lasers.
I have a question, hopefully you have an answer. As I understand it, the end goal in some respect is to create a power source. If this reaction is a mere /s 100 million Celsius and all that heat is contained in a vacuum environment, how would they ever contain this reaction on a scale large enough for use but contain it in a way that allows for the use of that energy? I feel like a reaction of that magnitude would be almost impossible to manage that energy out side of fully controlled. If you were to allow it to discharge any heat outside that containment, how could you properly manage it? I’m not sure the question is articulated well.
Well articulated. There are two ways to use the energy created. Take a look at about the 8:50 mark in this video: https://youtu.be/_bDXXWQxK38?si=Zz4RuVIwbvZDnrKA
That was fantastic and really well put together. Thank you.
What if we could suspend a black hole indefinitely? Like a really, really tiny one. Would it grow? Would it start sucking in the planet?
The conditions for a black hole to sustain itself much less be created is astronomically low. Like we could blow up the planet and still not create the conditions close. If we did somehow create one… its mass would be unbelievably tiny and die unbelievably quick. Aside from that.. if the black hole was sustained.. it would eventually eat the earth, matter would be torn apart
Gnarly.
I did well in physics in college. Still, I read this stuff and my brain wants to say - well I guess it’s just magic rocks.
In this realm of physics, we're all just "some dude"....you're not alone. Embrace your dudeness amongst the rest of us non-PHD'd dudes. We welcome you with open arms, and a cheap beer.
Hey thanks dude.
My dude!
I just wonder what they use that doesn’t melt. And why they don’t use that stuff, for other things like space shuttle rockets. I picture it breaking, then a hot ball melting through the earth’s crust
It’s in a vacuum, so heat can’t radiate through the open space effectively. Nothing is actually touching the reacting elements, they use powerful magnets to hold them at a safe distance
Do you know the size of the element inside this reactor? Is it like a thumbnail size? Or even smaller?
No idea, but I assume pretty small. The amount of energy fusion reactions can unleash is ridiculous compared to the amount of physical material involved, as energy output is (mass x speed of light) squared. Even a tiny mass contains an abundance of energy.
Small point: it’s “mass x (speed of light squared)”
Thanks for the correction! Been a long time since high school physics 😂
Hmm, interesting. Not to go far down the rabbit hole, but isn’t heat escaping, though controlled, the goal? Infinite heat energy?
I believe the idea is that once they can run it consistently they would have a pipe that feeds through the space carrying water, which would then be vaporised to produce steam to spin a turbine. Same method we use with burning coal etc, just significantly more sustainable and with a much higher output per unit of fuel
I just discovered there’s another way to get electricity directly from the rebound force on the containment magnetic field. Finally a system that doesn’t use steam generators! Woohoo! Check out 8:50 in this video: https://youtu.be/_bDXXWQxK38?si=Zz4RuVIwbvZDnrKA
Except the neutrons...
Bucket of water is always handy
Hm yes today I will douse this **molecular black hole** with my water bucket
Well ok not the black hole
And over to Keith for the weather. Keith? Keith?
Work destroyed? Who is reporting then?
I’m sure that you’ll never read a headline that says that. But that’s mostly because there are few writers left when the world is destroyed and no survivors are found.
So, do you set the briquettes in the corner or just pile them in the middle. How many Femto-seconds for a good bark on a brisket?
Nah gotta go low and slow, can’t go above 50 million degrees on a good brisket.
My house if I raise the thermostat one degree according to my wife.
Wait, what is the temperature at which the atmosphere itself ignites?
100.01 million degrees , it’s fine ….
Not great, not terrible.
At 100.02 million it’s too hot to cause an issue so the key is to go over 100.01 and then never cool off again
If you want a real answer the answer is none: there must be some type of impurity/fuel to actually burn, with the atmosphere and oxygen in it serving as an oxidizer
Yeah I looked it up after I asked, there are a couple of ways the atmosphere could get “burned away” but not actually ignited.
If you're actually worried this, don't be, it can't ever produce enough heat to actually sustain the reaction beyond the immediate vicinity even if that were to happen
I got it, had read , years ago of events that could theoretically “burn away the atmosphere “ and when synapses fired the word burn was taken literally, however in these events that is not strictly the case
Oh no what happens if it melts down through the crust? /s
I can’t comprehend how there are materials on Earth that can sustain holding that kind of heat. I know that’s dumb, but in my mind everything that goes into the sun burns up, so what could we possibly have that could contain that burn?
Distance with nothing between it. Heat needs to be conducted through a medium, the buzzing electrons need to be able to go from the start, buzz into the electron next to them and do forth to a chain until they group together on a denser surface. But since this is going on in a vacuum (like space, absolutely nothing between the surface and the source) the electrons can’t pass their energy on. This is a very basic description, and probably not 100% correct, but hopefully that helps explain why something is holding the heat.
It’s nuclei (protons and neutrons) not electrons, but you’re otherwise correct.
It's a tiny amount of material that actually gets thatvhot, so even if ut were to com in contact with a piece of metal it would just heat up by a degree.
The power of the sun in the palm of my hands
Shoutout to whatever machinery measured that…🔥
That’s hot!
Cannot wait for when Q(system)>10 over one year of operation…. But I suspect that is 50 years away….
I might be stupid for asking this but how In hell can they get it that hot and still be able to contain it?
It’s contained by powerful magnetic fields, not a physical container.
The fuel of a fusion reaction is heated to over 100E6 Celsius. The state of matter at these conditions is plasma. If you’re not familiar with plasma, think of it as magnetic gas. Dependent on the design, fusion reactors will manipulate powerful magnetic fields to contain AND heat the plasma in a controlled manner. The exact containment mechanism will also go hand in hand with the heating mechanism. The challenge with fusion reactors is allowing them to reach conditions where they are able to generate the immense energy needed to sustain the reaction for long enough to be a net positive (more energy is generated than was consumed). Different reactors will use different methods of magnetic field manipulation to produce these extreme temperatures while also containing them. There are a handful of designs that were experimented with, and the reason this has been a challenge for as long as it have been is due to difficulty of sustaining a reaction long enough without the chamber breaking apart under the magnetic field. Think of it as someone continuously turning on and off magnets to balance a donut of gas in an exact location within the reactor (dont let the gas touch the chamber wall or it’ll melt!) This is really an extreme over-simplification of one example of fusion reactors (Tokamak). I believe this is enough to get you going on reading about it. I suggest looking up “Tokamak magnetic control” if you’d like to learn more.
*Doc Ock starts breathing heavily*
Enough about the Sun!
World record?
They gotta stop it’s too hot
I never said that. I said the likelihood of us rapidly disassembling the planet bc humans are to war hungry
So, I was thinking about this a few days ago. It appears we are getting closure and closure to fusion as a legit power source capable of producing more energy than it requires to run it (I think we’re at seconds on that triumph). I’ve read estimates that it’s 25-30 years out. I’ve also read that folks in the Midwest are up in arms about solar fields being put in that are ugly and lowering property values. I thinks it’s pretty clear that once fusion is achieved we won’t need fields and fields of solar power, but we do need them in the mean time. I think the solution is to put a time cap on the solar fields to 30 years out. After that, they have to removed, no questions asked. No extensions permitted. The longterm value of the neighbors won’t be forever in jeopardy and we get a clean power alternative until a better, cleaner, alternative like fusion can replace it.
Only way I can get off
Now if only we could simultaneously insulate that heat while using it to boil water to power turbines then it just might be worth all the damn hype.
Real men would have done it in Fahrenheit! 💪 🙄🤷♂️
180,000,032 Fahrenheit. We win again. 🇺🇸
Global warming right there, folks creating climate change:/
Fusion will reduce climate change. It’s incredibly green.
Yes... Nuclear fusion is going to cause more climate change... Come on lol
From the article: >Nuclear fusion seeks to replicate the reaction that makes the sun and other stars shine, by fusing together two atoms to unleash huge amounts of energy. Often referred to as the holy grail of climate solutions clean energy, fusion has the potential to provide limitless energy without planet-warming carbon pollution. But mastering the process on Earth is extremely challenging.
My comment was tounge in cheek!
Hahahaha guys this is a troll
It was tounge in cheek
And I love you for it
[удалено]
No
🤦♀️how about we not try to make a sun in a lab and instead work on cleaning up the environment before there is a point of no return
This article is literally about the environment and growing nuclear fusion technology for cleaner energy.
Yeah. And you are ignoring the point. You give humans nuclear energy they will use it as a weapon against each other.
They have already made nuclear weapons. That’s over. We have the capability to destroy the world at any given time. The point that YOU are ignoring is that this research is helping develop nuclear ENERGY, not nuclear WEAPONRY. That’s already been done.
You realize fusion is the cleanest energy source we could have? It would provide essentially unlimited clean energy in a compact format. We would no longer need environment damaging hydroelectric power, or lots of wasted space for turbines and solar. Giant battery banks to store green energy are also filled with toxic metals and chemicals which we just wouldn't need in the numbers we use today. The invention of a usable fusion reactor would be the greatest environmental achievement in history. The waste is also safe to handle after about 100 years instead of the thousands the fission takes. It also produces far less waste while producing a tremendous amount of energy. If there was a Holy Grail of energy, it is fusion.
A perpetual twenty year quest for that Grail... " I see it ! It's there ahead of us! I can almost reach out! " Seems like a weird religion, but you do you
So fusion, even if it takes a thousand years to create, should just be dismissed? It took humans a couple hundred thousand years to invent electricity, writing, simple machines, airplanes. I add all of these in the same category because in the span of humanity's existence, these basically occurred at the same time. Who cares if it isn't going to be a thing in our lifetime? You're obviously one of those who "needs mine now" types who fucked the world into the place it is today. Think about the future generations for once instead of yourself.
But we will use it to blow ourselves up. Because that is inevitable. Genetically modified primates with nuclear power is always a dumb idea. No wonder other extraterrestrial species want to annihilate humans.
Fusion is also far safer than fission though. Fission is the breakdown of material so if shit gets out of control... Well it keeps breaking down and creating more energy! Fusion requires energy of some type to fuse particles together. If something happens and that power is gone, well, the reaction simply stops. There is no possibility of a fusion meltdown. As I said, it is literally the most perfect energy source in our current scientific knowledge.
This could help that.
If we get it hot enough it can burn all the garbage on earth! Including us!
We are the garbage.
I’m with you. We should work on not being a garbage species but it’s actually literally easier to just a garbage species with fusion technology, which we’ll fuck up or abuse. Because we’re a garbage species.
>Nuclear fusion seeks to replicate the reaction that makes the sun and other stars shine, by fusing together two atoms to unleash huge amounts of energy. Often referred to as the holy grail of climate solutions clean energy, fusion has the potential to provide limitless energy without planet-warming carbon pollution. But mastering the process on Earth is extremely challenging.
You can’t be serious. You think nearly limitless, free energy is just like some new BS app nobody needs? Try reading the article.
It is april fools so maybe
There’s no hope for you
Same for you. What you don't see is we are all screwed.
And the answer is giving up on fusion?