I don’t think we’ll get to the point where the energy that comes out will be higher enough than the energy put in to justify its use compared to other energy sources.
I don’t think we’ll get to the point where the energy that comes out will be higher enough than the energy put in to justify its use compared to other energy sources.
They also used to say Man will never fly.
Technically, just give it time. Politically, that’s a whole other matter.
Sure… I’m not saying fusion will never happen (it already does of course) or even that it’ll never be net positive for energy.
Just that, for energy it’s looking to be worse than most other options.
So I’m not saying man will never fly, I’m saying something closer to flying cars won’t happen. It’s not that we couldn’t do it, just that the alternatives are better.
I’m not sure how you can judge that, against something that doesn’t exist yet.
Simply based on past and current trends. The advancement curve on fusion would need to really step it up and if we say that it can, then we also need to accept the same is possible for the alternatives which means fusion still lags behind.
Fusion would need to be extra special somehow, and from what’s happened so far, it seems less special than the rest if anything.
Naturally this is all speculative of course, and being wrong on this is great either way as one way or another we will continue to get better at getting energy.
I’m not sure how you can judge that, against something that doesn’t exist yet.
Simply based on past and current trends.
Past and Current is not Future though.
The advancement curve on fusion would need to really step it up and if we say that it can, then we also need to accept the same is possible for the alternatives which means fusion still lags behind.
That logically doesn’t make sense though, because it’s assuming the same amount of “step it up” (AKA ‘progress’), which is not guaranteed. Fusion realized can far outstrip consumables, “winning the race” as it were, even if it takes longer to do so.
Your logic is also not taking to consideration how much reward you get for the effort. Even if one takes more effort to do than the other, if the results are much greater rewards, then it is better overall to do the greater rewards option.
Fusion would need to be extra special somehow, and from what’s happened so far, it seems less special than the rest if anything.
Well, it hasn’t been invented yet. I think we should probably all wait until it actually has, before passing judgment on it.
Also, it has the promise of doing that, in the same way that’s flying had the promise of a greater form of travel than horseback or cars, especially when long distances were concerned (AKA greater rewards).
Overall, I sense a general agenda from you, based on your comments, that you wish to forgo the investment in research and development for fusion, and instead concentrate on renewals like a solar, etc.
If so, I would again just reiterate how one has much greater potential rewards than the other, as renewables won’t get us to 100% of what we need (at least until the time comes when we figure out how to collect the solar energy from orbit in huge quantities and beam it down to Earth).
Also, it doesn’t have to be an either/or, it can be a both. Your comments would better serve Humanity better if you didn’t discourage fusion development, but instead promote both, as they both have positives that would be beneficial to Humanity.
Personally I would love to see both developed rigorously in parallel, a “pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time” type of philosophy.
Correct…? This is the problem of induction. As you’ve pointed out it’s flawed, and it’s also the best we can do for predicting the future.
That logically doesn’t make sense though, because it’s assuming the same amount of “step it up” (AKA ‘progress’), which is not guaranteed. Fusion realized can far outstrip consumables, “winning the race” as it were, even if it takes longer to do so.
This is the problem of induction again. Yes, fusion could have a breakthrough and then really take off. So could other technologies. The question is how likely are these things to happen? So far it’s not looking too great for fusion being special in that way.
Well, it hasn’t been invented yet. I think we should probably all wait until it actually has, before passing judgment on it.
I’m not passing judgment for the very reason it doesn’t exist. I’m making a speculation of what the end point will be based on how things have been going. The fact that it still doesn’t exist is a point against the technology btw.
Overall, I sense a general agenda from you, based on your comments, that you wish to forgo the investment in research and development for fusion, and instead concentrate on renewals like a solar, etc.
?? If you’re reading my other comments you’d see I literally explicitly say that fusion is still worth pursuing, even if it can’t be an energy source… Furthering science is good, even if it fails to do what we might’ve been trying to do. There’s essentially always other benefits that are often unforeseen at the time.
So, to recap:
I think we’ll crack fusion.
I think we’ll also get better at other stuff at the same time (and maybe find new things too).
I also think that after all that, man made fusion as a source of energy isn’t likely to end up on top.
Lastly, (and perhaps most importantly) I think it’s still worth trying to get fusion to work because it’d be great if it did! We’ll still learn things that can be applied elsewhere even if it’s not a great energy source.
That’s not the stumbling block for fusion. Getting significantly more energy out than we put in is the issue. Other technologies did this better, and those other technologies are advancing more quickly as well.
That’s not to say it’s not worth trying since nothing ventured nothing gained. There are other technological advancements that will likely come from our progressions in fusion too which will be great. I just don’t see fusion as being a good way to generate energy.
I’m specifically referring to man-made fusion as an energy source… Otherwise essentially all of our energy sources could be called “fusion” since they all trace back to it in one way or another.
I am quite positive I’ll see reliable, sustained fusion reactions in my lifetime.
I’m also pretty positive it’ll be useless as an energy source. Still could be useful for other things though.
Why? Honestly curious.
I don’t think we’ll get to the point where the energy that comes out will be higher enough than the energy put in to justify its use compared to other energy sources.
They also used to say Man will never fly.
Technically, just give it time. Politically, that’s a whole other matter.
Sure… I’m not saying fusion will never happen (it already does of course) or even that it’ll never be net positive for energy.
Just that, for energy it’s looking to be worse than most other options.
So I’m not saying man will never fly, I’m saying something closer to flying cars won’t happen. It’s not that we couldn’t do it, just that the alternatives are better.
I’m not sure how you can judge that, against something that doesn’t exist yet.
Simply based on past and current trends. The advancement curve on fusion would need to really step it up and if we say that it can, then we also need to accept the same is possible for the alternatives which means fusion still lags behind.
Fusion would need to be extra special somehow, and from what’s happened so far, it seems less special than the rest if anything.
Naturally this is all speculative of course, and being wrong on this is great either way as one way or another we will continue to get better at getting energy.
Past and Current is not Future though.
That logically doesn’t make sense though, because it’s assuming the same amount of “step it up” (AKA ‘progress’), which is not guaranteed. Fusion realized can far outstrip consumables, “winning the race” as it were, even if it takes longer to do so.
Your logic is also not taking to consideration how much reward you get for the effort. Even if one takes more effort to do than the other, if the results are much greater rewards, then it is better overall to do the greater rewards option.
Well, it hasn’t been invented yet. I think we should probably all wait until it actually has, before passing judgment on it.
Also, it has the promise of doing that, in the same way that’s flying had the promise of a greater form of travel than horseback or cars, especially when long distances were concerned (AKA greater rewards).
Overall, I sense a general agenda from you, based on your comments, that you wish to forgo the investment in research and development for fusion, and instead concentrate on renewals like a solar, etc.
If so, I would again just reiterate how one has much greater potential rewards than the other, as renewables won’t get us to 100% of what we need (at least until the time comes when we figure out how to collect the solar energy from orbit in huge quantities and beam it down to Earth).
Also, it doesn’t have to be an either/or, it can be a both. Your comments would better serve Humanity better if you didn’t discourage fusion development, but instead promote both, as they both have positives that would be beneficial to Humanity.
Personally I would love to see both developed rigorously in parallel, a “pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time” type of philosophy.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. :p
Correct…? This is the problem of induction. As you’ve pointed out it’s flawed, and it’s also the best we can do for predicting the future.
This is the problem of induction again. Yes, fusion could have a breakthrough and then really take off. So could other technologies. The question is how likely are these things to happen? So far it’s not looking too great for fusion being special in that way.
I’m not passing judgment for the very reason it doesn’t exist. I’m making a speculation of what the end point will be based on how things have been going. The fact that it still doesn’t exist is a point against the technology btw.
?? If you’re reading my other comments you’d see I literally explicitly say that fusion is still worth pursuing, even if it can’t be an energy source… Furthering science is good, even if it fails to do what we might’ve been trying to do. There’s essentially always other benefits that are often unforeseen at the time.
So, to recap:
Why? Converting heat into electricity is the easy part, it requires no new tech
That’s not the stumbling block for fusion. Getting significantly more energy out than we put in is the issue. Other technologies did this better, and those other technologies are advancing more quickly as well.
That’s not to say it’s not worth trying since nothing ventured nothing gained. There are other technological advancements that will likely come from our progressions in fusion too which will be great. I just don’t see fusion as being a good way to generate energy.
Seems pretty useful to me, considering you only exist because of fusion.
I’m specifically referring to man-made fusion as an energy source… Otherwise essentially all of our energy sources could be called “fusion” since they all trace back to it in one way or another.