Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 21, 2017
The route to commercial fusion electricity by 2030
Tokamak Energy’s contribution to putting fusion power into the grid by 2030: the ST40 prototype of a compact fusion reactor
The world is facing a deep decarbonisation challenge, and major organisations such as the Breakthrough Energy Coalition and the newly-announced Breakthrough Energy Ventures are seeking bold new technologies, like fusion, as the solution. Decarbonising all our energy requires a novel approach, but with engineers, scientists and private investors becoming increasingly serious about fusion, its potential is greater than ever.
Fusion researchers worldwide are developing technologies and materials for fusion power in the future. At Tokamak Energy, our aim is to put fusion power into the grid by 2030; we are pursuing the “spherical tokamak” route to achieve this using compact machines. Our theoretical and experimental research to date has shown that this can be a much faster route to fusion than more conventional large-scale tokamak devices.
Tokamak Energy grew out of the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy. It was established in 2010 with the objective of designing and developing small spherical tokamaks and compact fusion reactors. Spherical tokamak development was pioneered at Culham on the START and MAST tokamaks, which showed enhanced performance over the conventional doughnut shape. We are now building on this excellent science with a redirected focus on engineering, which enables us to further step up performance and progress towards achieving fusion.
An important element of our compact approach is the use of high temperature superconducting (HTS) magnets. In a tokamak, a magnetic field holds the plasma (an electrically-charged gas where the fusion reactions take place) away from the walls of the machine so that multi-million-degree temperatures can be achieved. HTS magnets can create higher magnetic fields than conventional (low temperature) superconductors whilst taking up less space, making them compatible with the more compact, squashed design of the spherical tokamak.
So HTS magnets allow for relatively small-size and low-power devices with high performance and widespread rapid commercial deployment opportunities. They also offer energy savings over conventional superconductors, which must be cooled to 4K (-269C). We plan to cool our HTS magnets to around 20K, though they remain superconducting up to 77K.
We have already built two experimental tokamaks and are constructing a third, the ST40. This is due to launch this Spring as part three of a five-stage plan to deliver fusion energy into the grid by 2030. It is designed to ultimately produce plasma temperatures of 100 million degrees (the right temperature range for controlled fusion on earth) though the near-term aim is to reach 15 million degrees (as hot as the centre of the sun) before the end of 2017. ST40 also aims to get within a factor of ten of energy breakeven conditions. To get even closer than that, we must then fine-tune the plasma density, temperature and confinement time.
The ST40 uses copper magnets rather than HTS so that we can build it relatively cheaply and quickly but demonstrate significant performance advances in the high-field, compact configuration. But for continuous reactor operation, rather than short experiments, superconducting magnets will have to be used. In parallel we are fast-track developing HTS magnet technology for use in our follow-up machine.
By 2019 the ST40 will demonstrate that fusion energy conditions are achievable in a small tokamak. At the same time we will unveil a large prototype HTS magnet suitable for a tokamak.
Our next tokamak device, using HTS magnets, will need to be significantly larger than ST40 – but still much smaller than huge tokamaks on the mainstream route to fusion, such as ITER, presently under construction in France. Using the knowledge acquired on ST40 we will build a reactor to demonstrate first electricity from fusion by 2025. This will then form the basis of a first-of-a-kind power plant module that will deliver electricity into the grid by 2030.
Our aims with the ST40 are bold and ambitious. Fusion is a huge challenge, but one that must be tackled if we are to deliver the essential decarbonisation of our energy supply. This will require massive investment, academic and industrial collaborations, an excellent supply chain, good management and many dedicated and creative engineers and scientists. Collaboration is crucial on the pathway to fusion energy as the multitude of complex challenges requires specialised knowledge and skill-sets.
At Tokamak Energy we are breaking the fusion development process down into a series of engineering challenges and raising successive investment on targets. We have received investment of £20m so far from L&G Capital, Oxford Instruments, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Rainbow Seed Fund and several others.
The future is bright for fusion. Private ventures are increasingly tackling challenges previously assumed to be the realm of governments and this will accelerate development. It allows smaller, agile companies such as ours to take different approaches to fusion and make new inroads into a field that has become large, political and cumbersome. As summarised nicely by Lord Rees of Ludlow, ex-President of the Royal Society, “the private sector now has a greater appetite for risk in scientific projects than Western governments.”
Tokamak Energy is treating the pursuit of fusion energy as an engineering challenge and business. We believe that with collaboration, dedication and investment, fusion will be a viable means of decarbonising global energy supply.
52 Comments on "The route to commercial fusion electricity by 2030"
Cloggie on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 3:42 pm
Tokamak Energy is treating the pursuit of fusion energy as an engineering challenge and business. We believe that with collaboration, dedication and investment, fusion will be a viable means of decarbonising global energy supply.
Sounds like a sponsored message.
antaris on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 4:19 pm
So let’s be positive and give them “the near-term aim is to reach 15 million degrees (as hot as the centre of the sun)”. Does anyone have any idea how to get electricity out of that energy donut ?
Jerome Purtzer on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 5:17 pm
The perfect fusion reactor has already been built and is a safe distance away. Onward to creating the first black hole on Earth-sounds like an episode of the Kardashians. It will suck your brain out and turn you into a Zombie!
penury on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 5:29 pm
The future of energy is fusion, and always wll be. We just need another 20 years and several billion dollars. We promise.
Go Speed Racer on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 8:06 pm
Stack a pile of old mattresses under that thing.
Soak em with diesel, and light a match.
That would heat it up real nice.
Might want to add a chimney.
Call our toll free Fusion number. Operators are
standing by to take your money.
Midnight Oil on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 9:31 pm
Amory Lovins loves to say…its like cutting butter with a chain saw…
Talk about over engineering to just boil some H2O!
Boy, creating heat as hot as the Sun….
Mein Führer. I can WALK!
Antius on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 9:41 pm
This sort of project would appear to be inherently unsuitable for a small start-up company. The ST40 will not generate power, but will consume money with no return until the first of the second generation plants is connected to the grid.
Normally, for a venture like this to succeed, the road to commercialisation must be quite rapid, as the parent company can only raise sufficient money by offering high rates of return. So, if these people think they know how to build a fusion reactor, it would be a better strategy to build a full-scale working model right now. Don’t go for a half sized model that doesn’t actually work. A machine capable of demonstrating breakeven would generate a flood of interest in their company, with lots of additional cash available. The smaller non-superconducting machine will simply burn money, and will never be impressive enough to demonstrate what is actually needed.
Sissyfuss on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 10:18 pm
Headline in 2030,” Commercial fusion electricity by 2050, we promise.”
Sissyfuss on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 10:20 pm
Pen, didn’t see your post. Must be a mind meld. Live long and prosper!
Antius on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 11:25 pm
What is the point of dumping useless quips and throw away sound bites into the comments of these boards? I know we are all here for entertainment of sorts, but discussions should help develop a greater understanding of the topic.
makati1 on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 11:42 pm
Because, Antius, these articles are a big joke on anyone who believes them. There is no “greater understanding” possible for something that is never going to happen.
If you cannot separate techie dreams from reality, you have the problem, not the people who comment here.
Antius on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 11:58 pm
‘Because, Antius, these articles are a big joke on anyone who believes them. There is no “greater understanding” possible for something that is never going to happen.
If you cannot separate techie dreams from reality, you have the problem, not the people who comment here.’
Jeez! You must hate getting out of bed every morning. Surely, not everything in this world is so completely futile? We are up against some difficult problems I won’t deny, but there are solutions, even if they aren’t easy. I for one am interested in exploring them. The day that stops it really isn’t worth being alive anymore. Life is all about struggling against problems and carving out a better future. Shouldn’t we at least try to do that instead pretending everything is futile?
GregT on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 12:19 am
“The day that stops it really isn’t worth being alive anymore. Life is all about struggling against problems and carving out a better future.”
Come to terms with your own mortality Antius. Until you do, there is no point in attempting to have a rational conversation with you.
Outcast_Searcher on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 12:42 am
Autius, this is doomer central. Except for a handful of optimistic or neutral dissenters, it’s forecasts of all doom, all the time. And facts be damned if they don’t reflect the doomer echo-chamber.
And for those daring to disagee, the doomers play “mean girls”. It’s so repetitious and predictable, it’s very boring, especially for any piece on fusion. (Look at GregT’s quip, for example. What did you say about mortality? Nothing. But he makes some bogus comment/assumption so he can bash you. And then he wants to be considered credible and “rational”. (Yeah. And purple unicorns rule the universe).
I don’t know enough about man made attempts at fusion to make any predictions. Obviously, success at commercially scalable magnitude would be a game changer, if at a reasonable cost.
Given the seeming lack of real progress om fusion (it’s always claims of milestones to come), I find it hard to be optimistic about t major breakthrough in the short term, though.
makati1 on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 1:34 am
Antius, I enjoy getting out of bed every morning. I enjoy life. I do not dream about techie unicorns or have any investments in the Market Casino to worry about. I have no debt. I live in the real world in decline, not one of fake optimism.
Tech is NOT necessary for a full, happy, healthy life. Ask the billions that have never known tech and have no interest in ever knowing. They are happy with their lives for the most part Only greedy Westerners believe that they have a right to consume the worlds resources at other’s expense.
Go Speed Racer on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 2:56 am
Awww, now look what U gloomers did.
U scared away the new guy, Antius.
Come on back Antius, jump in the pool,
it’s not so bad, the water is fine and
the sharks won’t bite you.
So academically speaking you never know
quite where the truth is. Because you
WILL get more heat out of that thing by
setting a stack of mattresses on fire under it, than you will ever get from fusion
inside of it.
So…. the useless quip, actually is academically correct. So now what ya gonna do.
If U actually want solutions to the energy topic, look to a liquid fuel Thorium fission reactor. The likely best is liquid fluoride liquid thorium.
Nobody is developing that one, because it is such a stellar performer. So then we are back to burning garbage. If U don’t like the smoke, stand upwind.
By the way, have a great day!
joe on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 4:33 am
By trying to copy the forces of the sun we are missing the point about how much is required to create a sun. To do the same here on earth seems foolish at best. Better to use solar cells and try to soak up those rays. Humans won’t struggle to survive, only to enrich and empower themselves, we could turn everything off tomorrow and start ‘surviving’, but thats not our nature. Lets just accept that.
Antius on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 4:43 am
I don’t scare so easy. It is a bit boring though being so unrelentingly negative about everything the whole time and not critically examining problems and solutions. I too have my doubts about the viability of tokomak fusion. I am prepared to say why – I don’t just assume everything is going to fail before I look into it.
Thorium fluoride reactors aren’t as good as they sound. Gen 3 nuclear reactors are now designed for 60 year generating lives. Gen 4 reactors are expected to do the same or better. That means the liquid fluoride reactor vessel must reliably contain a complex mix of actinide and fission product halides at high temperatures for 60 years. That is not an easy materials problem to solve. Stainless steels are vulnerable to halide stress corrosion cracking over much shorter periods.
The liquid sodium reactor is in some ways a more promising choice, but the problem here is an economic one. The heat exchangers are necessarily huge, due to the need to reliably separate primary and secondary circuit fluids. Fuel shuffling is complicated by a non-transparent coolant and special measures must be taken to keep air out of the core, which would generate highly abrasive oxides if it reacts with the sodium. Core power density is excellent, but whole system power density is less impressive. If deployed as a pool reactor, this reactor offers excellent passive safety against loss of heat sink faults, although the high reactivity of sodium with air and water is a design problem that pushes up costs.
The S-CO2 gas cooled fast reactor may be a more economic choice than either the MSR or SFR. It can operate in direct cycle mode, so no need for primary-secondary heat exchangers. The coolant is very dense, so the reactor and turbomachinery can be far more compact than a light water reactor. The core power density can be high, almost as high as the SFR, with a much greater whole system power density. Hot CO2 does not have any unresolved materials compatibility issues with steels. Thermal efficiency is also higher than most other concepts, which boosts plant economics. The downside of the GFR is the need for high pressurisation, which necessitates forced convection cooling in the event of a full pressurisation LOCA. The designer must either reduce core power density to remove that problem, or more likely, design systems that reliably maintain sufficient back-up pressure for natural convection cooling and provide reliable forced convection cooling methods. In my opinion, the S-CO2 GFR is the best option for Gen 4 because of its whole-system power density (capital cost), good fuel burn-up (fuel cycle economics) and the potential to operate as a travelling wave reactor thanks to the harder neutron spectrum (fuel economics).
Davy on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 5:01 am
Antius, I consider you a valued board member thanks for your time and expertise. I need you technical impute on NUK power and other technical issues you clearly have background in. Don’t let the Greg T and makati types get to you. They find enjoyment in attacking people instead of talking issues
Antius on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 6:41 am
In a nut shell, this is why a fusion reactor will struggle to be economic, even if it exceeds breakeven and generates net power:
The power released by fusion in a stable plasma is the product of the concentrations of the fusing elements (5×10^19 particles/m3 at 2 bar and 150million K); the reactivity (συ = 1×10^-21m3/s); and the Q value of fusion (14.1MeV). Multiply those figures together and you get a power density of 5.6MW/m3. That’s 100 times lower than a Fast Breeder Reactor Core and 14 times lower than a PWR reactor core.
How does a real fusion reactor do, when the volume of all the magnetic materials and shielding are added in? The ITER reactor is 19.4m in diameter and 11.3m high and is designed to generate 500MW of power. Lets assume a generous heat-power conversion efficiency of 50%. The reactor would need to produce 1000MW of heat. That works out at a power density of 300kW/m3 for the reactor alone. That isn’t good. It is a couple of orders of magnitude poorer than a fast fission reactor. It is about the same power density as a pulverised coal boiler. The difference is that the coal boiler is a simple carbon steel shell of tubes with water passing through it. It doesn’t contain superconducting magnets or liquid metal cooling systems and it doesn’t require its entire internal lining to be stripped out every 2 years due to neutron radiation damage.
The Japan Torus-60 came within about 50% of the triple product needed to reach ignition and stable burn. So producing a fusion reactor capable of generating net power is not beyond the limits of achievability over the next 10 years. Indeed, ITER should be able to demonstrate this. But producing a device capable of generating power at an affordable price is far more questionable. ITAR cost over $14billion for a 500MW plant. Costs will need to come down by at least an order of magnitude for fusion reactors to compete with fission reactors.
GregT on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 8:26 am
“It is a bit boring though being so unrelentingly negative about everything the whole time and not critically examining problems and solutions.”
How about critically examining the problems first, before trying to find a solution?
Let’s see. Overpopulation, resource depletion, species extinction, ocean acidification, climate change, to name a few rather big ones.
So Antius, tell us all please, which of the above problems do you believe that finding another cheap source of abundant energy will solve?
And Davy. Fuck off.
Davy on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 8:48 am
Greg fucktard, this is wht happens when you call me out by name for no reason other than to be an asshole so reference my finger PRICK breath.
Mike Aucott on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 8:50 am
Greg T, a cheap source of near-zero-carbon energy will solve all of them. Hit the books if you don’t understand why. You could start by reading Stewart Brand’s book “Whole Earth Discipline.”
Davy on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 9:06 am
Mike, get real man, for 7BIL people “zero carbon”??? The food system alone will kill the climate. WTF. “Whole Earth Discipline” That is better put as a die off to 500MIL or less without modernity. Hit the books there Mike.
GregT on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 9:14 am
Mike,
What do you propose that we use that source of ‘near’ carbon-zero energy for?
GregT on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 9:45 am
“Greg fucktard, this is wht happens when you call me out by name for no reason other than to be an asshole so reference my finger PRICK breath.”
Wrong Davy. This is what happens when dealing with a hurt little ego that is emotionally attached to a national identity.
Antius on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 10:22 am
‘How about critically examining the problems first, before trying to find a solution?
Let’s see. Overpopulation, resource depletion, species extinction, ocean acidification, climate change, to name a few rather big ones.
So Antius, tell us all please, which of the above problems do you believe that finding another cheap source of abundant energy will solve?’
In my humble opinion, either all of them, or none of them, but not in the way that most people would tend to assume.
Abundant nuclear energy, either fission or fusion, will buy us time, but ultimately in a closed system, some other resource limit will catch up with us if we continue to grow, or even somehow continue at a steady state with industrial lifestyles. The first limits beyond energy are likely to be food and water. The problem is that human beings are using stored energy, not just in their primary energy supply (fossil fuels), but also the energy that nature has invested over millions of years to concentrate resources. This includes ecosystems, top soil and high grade mineral ore. Not only are we running out of stored primary energy, we are running into limits that will require even more energy to overcome. This is what people mean when they talk about exceeding the Earth’s carrying capacity.
To make matters worse, population is still rising, so anything that the global economy does produce is spread over a larger capita. Beyond that, we are depleting and dumping wastes into the biosphere that sustains us. So we are actually reducing carrying capacity. It is like a pincer movement that is closing in upon us from four sides. For a little while, a new cheap source of energy would allow us to stay ahead of other resource limits. This is why I have little faith in renewable energy. Although I know that it sounds fundamentally sensible in principle, it cannot provide the sort of cheap energy that lifts us above those other ‘limits to growth’ sorts of problems, because it has lower EROI than fossil and nuclear energy sources due to its very nature as a low power density and intermittent resource.
Ultimately, in a closed system with a growth based economy, literally nothing will help, but cheap energy may buy us enough time to escape. The only way to escape the limitations of a closed system is to leave the closed system. If a rapid expansion of nuclear energy can keep our economy going for the next few decades, we have the chance of developing technologies that allow some portion of humanity to escape the Earth altogether and begin living in space using extra-terrestrial resources. Elon Musk has the same idea and has made a great deal of progress towards this, but I personally think that Mars is the wrong target. It is too distant, too small to provide a long-term home for many people and essentially leaves us in the same long-term predicament that we are in now. In my opinion, High Earth Orbit is the best home for humanity for the next few centuries, using abundant energy from the sun and resources from Near Earth Asteroids. For those remaining on Earth, the asteroids could provide abundant minerals and uninterrupted electric power through solar power satellites.
To many this will sound absurd and fantastical. I present it as the most desirable option, not the easiest one and not the most likely. Right now, we are in a situation not at all unlike that depicted in the film Interstellar. Planetary resources are declining and those that understand the situation are working desperately to develop the means that allows us to escape before nature slams the door on us.
We do have the technologies required to do this. It doesn’t require warp drive or anything fantastical. But it does require a lot of resources directed in the right direction. (1) Rapid development and build-up of Gen 4 reactor systems, focusing on inherent safety measures, such that reactors are robust by design. This is necessary to reduce regulation costs; (2) simultaneously, develop the technologies needed to enact space colonisation and space resource exploitation. These are many and varied. They include the vehicles needed to access low earth orbit (Musk is working on these), but also the means to transport people and materials efficiently from place-to-place when in orbit, i.e. ion and mass driven propulsion systems. We must also develop the technologies needed to survive in space and process asteroid resources into valuable raw materials and products.
GregT on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 11:50 am
Antius,
Thank you for your considerate response. My apologies if I came across as being negative to you.
“To many this will sound absurd and fantastical. I present it as the most desirable option, not the easiest one and not the most likely. Right now, we are in a situation not at all unlike that depicted in the film Interstellar. Planetary resources are declining and those that understand the situation are working desperately to develop the means that allows us to escape before nature slams the door on us.”
Not to burst your bubble, but the nearest known possibly habitable planet is a tad over 4 light years away.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/eso-discovers-earth-size-planet-in-habitable-zone-of-nearest-star
With current technologies, (derived from our one time allotment of stored ancient solar energy) we could conceivably send a team of a couple of humans to arrive there in roughly 90,000 years. They could then send back info as to whether the planet is really habitable, or not.
https://tinyurl.com/zy2kntq
In the mean time we might be better served by taking care of what remains of the one planet that we will ever have to call home, by learning to live within the confines of our natural environment, instead of falsely believing that it is a resource base for human exploitation.
GregT on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 11:53 am
And, I might add, consumption.
JuanP on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 12:40 pm
People who think that fusion energy will solve our problems fail to understand the nature of the predicament we are in. Access to more energy would only allow us to continue breeding excessively for a longer time leading to unbelievable environmental destruction. Human nature is our problem not a lack of energy.
Antius on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 1:21 pm
‘Not to burst your bubble, but the nearest known possibly habitable planet is a tad over 4 light years away.’
I am talking about moving to orbit around the Earth and using resources from Near Earth Asteroids to construct artificial habitats, not moving to some distant star system. The first is an expansion of things we have already been doing for 50 years. The second, is as you say impossible at present. The reductions in launch costs thanks to Musk and others, now make this achievable, if we lifting into space people and high value equipment and using asteroid materials for high mass, low value components.
I do not propose long range space colonisation, although within the next century it is reasonable to assume that we can achieve a modest human presence on Mars. But a human presence in near Earth space, using materials from Earth crossing asteroids to supply metals and energy to Earth, is not something that is permanently beyond us. It is the one thing that might allow us to escape the closed system.
Davy on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 1:47 pm
Antius, let’s just say maybe your idea has merit. Maybe we can do it but it will be only for a lucky few. For most of the rest we are going to have to learn to live in a destroyed planetary system. Your vision is for privilege.
I am not going to be part of it. I have no interest in living in a space vehicle. I will be planted in the ground. My last days are here on my farm. I am making mental arrangement for this end. I am ok with dying at home close to nature with loved ones hopefully. Maybe a mad max party gets me but I am ready for that too. I will take one or two with me. As for the here and now I am loving life while I can. Good luck with your starship!
GregT on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 2:02 pm
Musk is a modern day industrialist. Expecting an industrialist to save us from the consequences of industrialism, is quite frankly, insane.
We have/had an incredibly beautiful and diverse planet. Why would anyone prefer to live on an asteroid, instead of attempting to preserve what we already have/had? For a few creature comforts? Conveniences? IMHO, considering that every single one of us has a very short time here in this life, I would propose that we have a moral and ethical responsibility to take care of this amazing planet not only for future generations, but for life itself. Continuing down the path that we are currently on is leading to global mass extinction. If there are any human beings left by next century, (you and I obviously not included), they will likely be living in the same manner as our ancestors were, 300 or more years ago. At this conjecture, however, it is looking extremely unlikely that there will be any humans left at all. Our inability to change direction, and our continued ignorance of the consequences of modern industrialism, will make sure of that.
peakyeast on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 5:42 pm
@antius: Its beautiful science fiction you write.
But as Juan says: Our problem is human nature.
If you ask a clever psychopath to take medicine for his condition – you can bet he will vehemently opposed to it. He will postulate that there is absolutely nothing wrong with him.
It is the same with our leadership…
We always fall back to tried and true methods of problem solving:
War
makati1 on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 6:08 pm
Peaky, it is also a common disease among our population. To use the short term: Denial. The operative word is: IF. If human intelligence was shown on a graph, it would have peaked long ago and be on the down side. All we can do is watch the show.
And, yes, WAR is the usual answer to everything. Isn’t it wonderful that the techies have made it also the LAST answer?
Antius on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 6:23 pm
‘Antius, let’s just say maybe your idea has merit. Maybe we can do it but it will be only for a lucky few. For most of the rest we are going to have to learn to live in a destroyed planetary system. Your vision is for privilege.’
Yes. It will always be relatively expensive to transport a person and their effects into space and even more expensive to high Earth orbit. Even with the reusability and economy of scale that Musk is now developing, it will still be hundreds of thousands of dollars per person. A person with good engineering skills might be able to make that trip by selling their home or getting a big bank loan, if the space side job is well paid enough. But bottom line is this is unlikely to be a solution for everyone. It will be another type of life boat for those that have the skills needed and can afford to make the trip.
‘I am not going to be part of it. I have no interest in living in a space vehicle.’
In the short to medium term, living arrangements will be relatively cramped compared to what we are accustomed to. In the longer term we might build things like this:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/BernalSph.html
But it will be a long time before anything like that is affordable. Early habitats will not only be cramped, but will have manufacturing areas in relatively close proximity. It won’t be any kind of paradise, but will allow humanity to get a foothold on the high frontier.
‘We have/had an incredibly beautiful and diverse planet. Why would anyone prefer to live on an asteroid, instead of attempting to preserve what we already have/had?’
We are stuck in a perpetual growth machine. Right now we are facing the possibility of thermodynamic collapse. That means living in third world conditions on an ecologically devastated world. Space resources could ease the problems of those left behind. New materials, new energy sources and eventually, a sink for excess population. In my opinion, it could only make things better. But it isn’t an easy option, either for those that have to fund its initial development or the early settlers, for whom I suspect life will be hard and dangerous. I raise this option, because ultimately it allows humanity an infinite new domain. But the first several decades will be hard work trying to survive and prosper in the new environment.
GregT on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 6:27 pm
………………………
Go Speed Racer on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 8:06 pm
Now that is a valuable perspective, the energy
production density of the proposed reactor.
And Fusion sucks on that parameter, OK.
So even if it worked, the system would be the size
of the Golden Gate Bridge.
I wonder if they could crank up the energy density? Ya never know.
There is a parallel topic.
People say ‘sun in a bottle’ but that is crap.
The Fusion reaction in the sun, is much different
from the resction used by a man made reactor.
You can google the Fusion reactions.
And for sure, the energy density of the sun,
as a reactor, is extremely low.
There are not even very many atoms in a cubic
meter of the sun core. I believe the power output
of a cubic meter of sun core, is only scarcely a
couple of watts. What makes it bright, is just that
The whole damn thing is so BIG.
But even a kid knows that the sun is big.
I guess the Fusion welfare scientists don’t know that.
LOL.
I would like to work in Fusion research. I like that,
making 200 grand a year and collecting Bentley’s.
Sign me up. By that yardstick, Fusion works great.
200
wanderer on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 8:18 pm
Antius, GregT and Davy, I think an acceptable compromise can be reached. Those who choose to do so can choose to go out into space and live in rotating space stations or colonies on Mars and Europa, bringing with them the energy-intensive ways of old (modern) earth industrial society and feeding off the hydrogen of Jupiter or the hydrocarbon seas of Titan. Those who choose to stay on this planet, or are left on this planet, on the other hand, can follow the way of the long emergency and homesteading, going back to the land and preserving the ecosystem in the ways of our ancestors. This would both get the most polluting and resource consuming section of society off the planet, no longer destroying the environment or driving civilization to collapse other than in their high-tech enclaves among the stars, and leave those who wish to care for and preserve the planet here to carry out their plans for sustainable living. How’s that? Earth can remain a garden and a home for those who wish it to be so. The stars can become a dwelling place and source of infinite resources for the tech lovers. Everyone comes out happy.
Davy on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 8:39 pm
Wanderer, this talk just does not add up in my head. We can’t even manage simple arrangements like cities flawlessly how are we going to do it in space with zero tolerance. When I was young it was imaginable but today I don’t see it. I hope you optimist are successful but I think we are already a failure.
makati1 on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 8:41 pm
For those who think a space station is the answer, maybe you should watch the film
“Elysium”(2013) to see how that would turn out.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535108/
You can run, but you cannot hide. LOL
GregT on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 10:15 pm
Sounds like a great compromise wanderer. If only it was that simple.
Go Speed Racer on Thu, 23rd Feb 2017 3:04 am
Bad news Wanderer, the concept that we can have a space station at Jupiter or Saturn, is baloney. There is too much radiation there. Not expert on it, but something about the big gas planets is totally loaded with neutrons. And drags in the solar radiation too. Hot as a nuclear plant. People can’t live 5 minutes there. Intense radioactivity. Seems like not many people realize this. It’s true. So you can’t have the Utopia living off Jupiter’s hydrogen. Sorry to disappoint.
Antius on Thu, 23rd Feb 2017 5:33 am
Go Speed Racer: That is correct for the inner moons of Jupiter. But Jupiter is too far away, too far from the sun and has too deep a gravity well to be a near term target for human colonisation anyway. The outer planets will not be useful for humanity until much further into the future – probably centuries to come. Even Mars is not realistic as a near term target because of its distance and the difficulty of making manned landings safely.
What is realistic in the near term is Earth orbit, using materials gathered by small teams sent to Near Earth Asteroids and using abundant solar power at Earth’s distance from the sun. This is where men like Musk should be focusing their efforts. It would also allow the construction of solar power satellites to provide energy to Earth and possibly the importation of rare and valuable elements that are in short supply on Earth, i.e. platinum group metals and later on copper, zinc, manganese, zirconium, etc.
Davy on Thu, 23rd Feb 2017 6:40 am
Just a little expansion on your theme Antius. While I find it on the edges of the possible I would say this we probably should arrange a near earth orbital colony of humans that can breed and maintain the species while the planetary earth system suffers centuries or a millenniums of disturbance. It is possible we could then come back down at some point and recolonize the earth just in case we go extinct. You could also be a repository of knowledge and wisdom. Damn, what a great story line for Hollywood!
Go Speed Racer on Thu, 23rd Feb 2017 11:06 am
Hi Antius and Davy,
Ther is an article on this website about mining in the ocean. It’s probly much cheaper to mine in th ocean here, rather than an asteroid over there.
It’s remarkable, there are not many places where humans could setup a colony.
On Venus , there is possibility of a floating space ship, sort of like Hindenburg. Moon yes, but no air and lethal radiation.
Even Mars, no oxygen, almost a Vacuum, and lethal radiation.
If we were to have sofa, mattress, and tire fires on Mars, we would need special equipment. Including lightweight gas cans, special briquette that release the oxygen, and also special rocket shipments of old tires sent from Earth.
Such technical complexity suggests we are more
capable as a species, of having backyard garbage fires here on Earth, rather than on other planets.
Antius on Thu, 23rd Feb 2017 1:08 pm
‘It’s remarkable, there are not many places where humans could setup a colony.
On Venus , there is possibility of a floating space ship, sort of like Hindenburg. Moon yes, but no air and lethal radiation.
Even Mars, no oxygen, almost a Vacuum, and lethal radiation.’
There is more to say about each of these places, but I am not for the time being suggesting we live on any of them.
My suggestion was that we set up colonies and manufacturing facilities in Earth orbit, using materials brought in from Near Earth Asteroids. It is much easier and more cost effective to do this than colonising another planet. I am inclined to think that would be beyond us in the near future.
The mining facilities would be largely automated, with only a small crew needed to carry out repairs when equipment goes wrong. This keeps costs down – sending people into deep space far away from earth is very expensive. Sending people and industrial equipment into Earth orbit is a lot easier (and cheaper).
Ultimately, the practicality of this idea will not be demonstrated or disproved until there is a full engineering study. But NASA is not a commercial organisation and the likes of Musk are captivated by the more exciting but less achievable goal of colonising Mars.
Mike Aucott on Thu, 23rd Feb 2017 6:21 pm
Antius, Greg T, others,
I wish you would read a couple books by some truly deep thinkers. We humans can work things out here on earth. Prosperity and empowering women lowers the birth rate. Nature is forgiving. All is not lost. Relatively carbon-free energy from next-generation nuclear will indeed buy us time, maybe more. Read Whole Earth Discipline by Stuart Brand.
And for a not overly optimistic but likely very wise and perceptive view of where we and electronic life are headed, read Jim Lovelock’s Rough Ride to the Future.
makati1 on Thu, 23rd Feb 2017 6:32 pm
Mike, maybe we could have had a better future if we had started 50 years ago, but we are too late. It is impossible now. If you do not realize that fact, you are wasting your time and money on ‘feel good’ books that portray their own fantasy ideas.
Nature is NOT forgiving. Ask any wildebeest if the lion is going to eat him and you will get a definite “YES”. Ask a plague virus if it is going to kill you and the answer will be “YES”. Forgiving? Nope! You live by “her” rules or you die. Simple.
Human arrogance and greed is destroying the world. Nothing is going to change that until we are all gone. Only druggies and dreamers believe otherwise. Which are you?
GregT on Thu, 23rd Feb 2017 9:37 pm
Mike,
We humans won’t have any hope of working anything out at all if we keep burning fossil fuels. Around 70% of all the oxygen on Earth is generated in the oceans by phytoplankton, plankton, and kelp. As the Oceans continue to become more acidic, the species that live in them will continue to die off.
The last time I checked, next-generation nuclear is not our primary energy source. So I’m not sure how you believe that it is going to buy us time?
And as Makati has already pointed out above, nature is anything but forgiving. ‘Brutal’ is probably a much more appropriate word to describe nature.