Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #346
    AvatarGlenn Millam
    Member

    After doing a lot of reading on fusion on the net, I keep running into a number: 50 years. I first found it as the estimate of time the team of people working on ITER estimated for a tokamak to become a fully operational energy-producing reactor. (That will help with global warming and the looming oil crisis.) Looking for a better answer, I went to Sandia National Laboratory hoping for a better answer about the Z-Pinch, but there was the same number, 50 years.

    Why so long? I hate to get political, but these things aren’t just research projects, they are pretty vital for the worlds political stability, humanity’s economic viability, and the Earths ecological sustainability. This round 50-year target sounds like a safe number to tell political leaders who made their fortunes in oil that their future wealth will be safe from these projects. Is this number a real goal, or something that had to be said to keep the public funds from drying up?

    #1748
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    Yes, 50 does seem like a conveniently rounded number that coincides with the “end of oil”. But ITER does have a more specific timeline. Links to that from this article on our site: https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/fusion_now/#bar

    Actually, here is a direct link to the timeline image on the ITER site: http://www.iter.org/gifs2/long-terms.jpg

    We need to make a nice color coded chart like that for Focus Fusion 🙂

    #1889
    AvatarTorulf
    Member

    The timeline 50-year to working fusion is old.
    During the 1970-tis time was also 50 year.
    This timeline seems to be a constant.

    #1891
    AvatarSteve
    Member

    a

    #2462
    AvatarMatt M
    Member

    Using a 50 year timeline effectively removes the researcher
    from every having to produce anything workable in his
    lifetime. He will be retired and living on his pension
    before anyone realizes he never actually acomplished
    anything.

    Matt

    #2463
    AvatarMatt M
    Member

    Using a 50 year timeline effectively removes the researcher
    from every having to produce anything workable in his
    lifetime. He will be retired and living on his pension
    before anyone realizes he never actually acomplished
    anything.

    Matt

    #2464
    Avatarwebtaz99
    Participant

    You cannot dictate innovation.

    #2465
    AvatarAaronB
    Member

    Consider this quote by Wilbur Wright:

    #2467
    AvatarJolly Roger
    Member

    Rezwan wrote: Yes, 50 does seem like a conveniently rounded number that coincides with the “end of oil”. …

    With the price of crude oil due to break $100/bl any day now, $200 and $300/bl in a few years is quite possible. The end of cheap oil is in site. There is a larger supply of expensive oil, but it is doubtful that production can keep up with demand at any price.

    Economical replacement of oil 50 years from now will be about 45 years too late!

    #2476
    AvatarTransmute
    Member

    Peak oil is usually projected in less then 20 years. Back in the 1950’s fusion power was projected to appear in 2000’s, now in the 2000’s it projected about 2050!

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.