Nuclear fusion breakthrough: What does it mean for space exploration?

[Admin]

Nuclear fusion has broad implications, fueling hopes of clean, limitless energy and the long-held dream of future rockets that are driven by nuclear propulsion.

Nuclear fusion breakthrough: What does it mean for space exploration? : Read more

 

[bwana4swahili]

And producing 3.15MJ of output for 300+MJ is somehow a major breakthrough!? We're still a long, long, long way from anything useful!!

 

[Vernon Brechin]

In order to embrace the ground-based and spaced-based fusion concepts covered in this article one likely assumes that we have 20-30 years to turn this 'Titanic' around. Such dreamers typically have become masterful at excluding the following warnings from their consciousness.

IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster

IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster

Greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2025, say climate scientists in what is in effect their final warning

www.theguardian.com

UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change'

UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid ‘runaway climate change’

António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general, told global leaders this week that the world has less than two years to avoid “runaway climate change.”“If we do not change course by 20…

thehill.com

* This statement was made 4-years ago.

 

[bwana4swahili]

Always gloom and doom, gloom and doom! Homo sapiens will adapt or die just as billions of species before them.

 

[Vernon Brechin]

Always gloom and doom, gloom and doom! Homo sapiens will adapt or die just as billions of species before them.

Many people have bought into the concept that we have a duty and an obligation to maintain an optimistic outlook despite the increasingly dire evidence coming from the broad spectrum of scientists, around the globe, that have been studying Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD) effects for at least a half-century. That includes scientists studying both the physical and the biological aspects of ACD.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

There is nothing about the climate that is going to kill off all humans by 2025, 2050 or even 2100, even if we continue to emit more CO2 than we pledged. What will happen is that a lot of our coastal infrastructures will be inundated and need to be moved or replaced, and a lot of people will find their climate has changed - some for the worse and some for the better. In the long run, if we continue as we are doing, sea level will top out at about 300' higher than today.

The predictions that Earth will become unfit for life are not likely outcomes, because there will be social feedbacks that force changes in our ways. The bigger issue is whether those changes result in wars over migration that will existentially threaten our species in the nearer term.

 

[Vernon Brechin]

There is nothing about the climate that is going to kill off all humans by 2025, 2050 or even 2100, even if we continue to emit more CO2 than we pledged. What will happen is that a lot of our coastal infrastructures will be inundated and need to be moved or replaced, and a lot of people will find their climate has changed - some for the worse and some for the better. In the long run, if we continue as we are doing, sea level will top out at about 300' higher than today.

The predictions that Earth will become unfit for life are not likely outcomes, because there will be social feedbacks that force changes in our ways. The bigger issue is whether those changes result in wars over migration that will existentially threaten our species in the nearer term.

I noticed a strong emphasis around the survivability of our own species. That is typical and often referred to as anthropocentric thinking. Despite your deep training in a specific field of physical science most likely you have a limited academic background in fields such as ecology, conservation biology and evolutionary biology. You likely were never immersed in the studies of how dependent human life is upon a diverse and healthy ecosystem of millions of other species. You likely are unaware that there are biochemical limits to the rate at which the higher lifeforms can evolve to meet changing climatic conditions. These are part of the input to the judgements made in the IPCC reports. They come from many thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers from a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines gathering evidence for at least the last half-century. The vast majority of the world's 8+ billion people are unaware of that so you are not alone in your views.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Vernon, you are drastically underestimating my credentials and experience, as well as my interest in the natural ecosystems beyond just human comfort.

So, please drop the attitude that I am naïve, undereducated or otherwise unaware about the things you are advocating.

I have been actually involved in the issues we are discussing for decades, so this is much more than an academic exercise for me. And, I am well aware of the IPCC and other reports on global warming - I have been following the issues since the 1970s, and am updating the projected sea levels (and local land subsidence) for impacts on my home every time there is an update, as well as following the research on the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica to see how new knowledge is likely to affect those estimates. I am also working on a solar installation for my property. I am also involved in habitat restorations and preservations in my local area. I don't just post about things that matter, I get out and do things that I hope will matter.

So, you are going to have to adopt a more balanced style for discussing the issues if you want to have any effect on my understanding of them. Trying to come across as possessing superior education, experience or knowledge isn't getting you any traction. Debate the issues with facts, please.

 

[Helio]

Vernon, ask yourself why RCP8.5 was replaced with RCP4.5? Climate modeling still doesn't have a strong grip on all the variables and how they affect climate, though it is critical that they keep improving this work.

I like the use of the phrase, "climate sensitivity", to better address the real effort in climate modeling of all those variables, like the impact from CO2. Language is important and it has been abused. Consider how stupid the phrase "climate denier" sounds, which is, no doubt, intended as an ad hominem. I can't imagine anyone claiming there is no such thing as a climate?

I wonder how many realize that more will die from cold than from heat in the next 12 months.? The CDC shows significantly more from cold in the US, which is based on death certificates. Other sources, however, say it is about even. Yet, world-wide, the mortality from cold is likely more than 5 to 1. [here] Heat in the winter requires, currently, fossil fuels. Air conditioners made the south livable, also requiring fossil fuels. We are playing with lives of the vulnerable if we move off fossil fuels too quickly, and rhetoric suggests that's the direction being taken. Wind and solar can help but we must understand their limitations.

More science, less hullabaloo.

 

[Helio]

Nuclear fusion has broad implications, fueling hopes of clean, limitless energy and the long-held dream of future rockets that are driven by nuclear propulsion.

Nuclear fusion breakthrough: What does it mean for space exploration? : Read more

The part of the article revealing a prototype fusion propulsion is being built is very interesting!

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Yes, that is interesting. Pulsar Fusion has made other types of engines, but not fusion based, yet. See https://pulsarfusion.com/ .

Considering that their website says "NUCLEAR FUSION SET TO BE THE WORLD’S DOMINANT POWER SOURCE BY 2100", I put them in the "advocate" category rather than the "objective forecaster" category.

So, when I read "Pulsar has now proceeded to phase 3, the manufacture of the initial test unit. Static tests are to begin in 2023 followed by an In Orbit Demonstration (IOD) of the technology in 2027," I am hopeful but not overly optimistic. Research groups have been building fusion devices here on Earth for decades, and none are yet "continuous" or even close to it. True, an open system is much easier to run continuously than the closed systems that the other current projects hope to create for electric power production here on Earth's surface. "Containment" becomes "direction" in open systems designed to produce thrust. But, considering how slow the progress has been on other fusion projects, I will be amazed if Pulsar Fusion gets a successful orbital demonstration as early as 5 years from now.

 

[Vernon Brechin]

Vernon, ask yourself why RCP8.5 was replaced with RCP4.5? Climate modeling still doesn't have a strong grip on all the variables and how they affect climate, though it is critical that they keep improving this work.

I like the use of the phrase, "climate sensitivity", to better address the real effort in climate modeling of all those variables, like the impact from CO2. Language is important and it has been abused. Consider how stupid the phrase "climate denier" sounds, which is, no doubt, intended as an ad hominem. I can't imagine anyone claiming there is no such thing as a climate?

I wonder how many realize that more will die from cold than from heat in the next 12 months.? The CDC shows significantly more from cold in the US, which is based on death certificates. Other sources, however, say it is about even. Yet, world-wide, the mortality from cold is likely more than 5 to 1. [here] Heat in the winter requires, currently, fossil fuels. Air conditioners made the south livable, also requiring fossil fuels. We are playing with lives of the vulnerable if we move off fossil fuels too quickly, and rhetoric suggests that's the direction being taken. Wind and solar can help but we must understand their limitations.

More science, less hullabaloo.

I apologize for the blind assumptions that I made regarding your level of expertise. I've long been well aware that many people have a great deal of expertise in certain fields but can know very little about other fields. I worked with engineers, subatomic particle physicists and astro physicists who had only fleeting knowledge in the biological science fields.

I'm glad to know that you've been doing your part to help reduce impacts upon our environment. I was shocked that you've primarily been concerned with sea level rise which is one of the slowest aspects of Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD). It appeared that you may not have been aware of the numerous reinforcing feedback processes that are going into effect that are likely to further accelerate the changes. Those feedbacks include reduction in Arctic Sea reflectivity, breakdown of ancient methane hydrates under the Arctic Sea shelves and the permafrost regions, an increase in release of CO2, methane, and NO2 from the rotting ancient organismic material in the former permafrost regions, and the reduction in solar radiation blocking atmospheric aerosols as we reduce our use of fossil fuels.

It seems to me that most people in engineering and other physical science related fields tend to believe that humans are so creative and clever that there will never be a threshold beyond which we can't overcome the problems that we have created, or that we encounter.

You suggested our main quest now should be relocating the vast pockets of humanity that now live close to the current sea level. When I imagine that effort I envision tens of thousands of diesel burning heavy equipment and cement production plants that spew massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. I'm sure you are aware that the fossil fuel enterprises continue to get leases to extract more of fossil fuels that are listed as reserves in their books. You've seen the commitments that countries have made that have no enforcement teeth. Below are some links to articles that suggest how dire the situation is.

Watered down: why negotiators at Cop15 are barely mentioning the ocean

Watered down: how the international community is ignoring the ocean – revealed

Only two instances of the word ‘ocean’ are to be found in the latest 5,000-word working agreement at Cop15, as critics say marine biodiversity is being sacrificed

www.theguardian.com

Global warming in the pipeline

[2212.04474] Global warming in the pipeline

arxiv.org

Climate scientists James Hansen is the lead author on this just published paper.

The short lifespan of technological civilizations and the future of Homo sapiens

The short lifespan of technological civilizations and the future of Homo sapiens

The short lifespan of technological civilizations and the future of Homo sapiens

arctic-news.blogspot.com

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Vernon,

First, I think you quoted Helio's post, but seem to be responding to mine.

And, you are misrepresenting my post. I am not limiting my attention to sea level rise, it is just that I am relating those projections to my home, which is already in jeopardy, so I am familiar with the reports that contain those projections along with the other aspects that you seem to think I need to be told about.

It is strange that you seem to somehow think that you are well versed in multiple areas of science, while others are not and we need you to tell us what to think.

What I am seeing in your posts is a familiar attitude typically held by activists who present one-sided arguments against various forms of energy production, while not actually supporting any alternative. That is a destructive political posture - so you are part of the problem.

What is needed is an honest discussion of the pros, cons, feasibility and time-frame for actual changes in the way we produce and use energy from various sources.

And, that needs to realistically deal with human nature and the actual politics involved.

So, to be useful, I suggest that you start advocating for some policies, and be williing to realistically discus their costs, risks, feasibility, and possible schedules for direct comparison to other policies/technologies.

In that regard, I suggest that you actually look at what Helio was saying about the risk of death due to cold as well as due to heat. Mitigating both requires substantial energy usage.

And, if you think that some of us are missing a fact that is relevant, just state the fact and provide some support for it (maybe just a link) rather than just imply that we don't know what we need to know to make proper decisions, so we should take your word for what we should be doing.

 

[Helio]

What is needed is an honest discussion of the pros, cons, feasibility and time-frame for actual changes in the way we produce and use energy from various sources.

And, that needs to realistically deal with human nature and the actual politics involved.

Exactly. I have come to hold that the harder one side pushes to suppress the other, it's the other side that is more likely the one to be favored. Hence, "more science, less hullabaloo."

So, to be useful, I suggest that you start advocating for some policies, and be williing to realistically discus their costs, risks, feasibility, and possible schedules for direct comparison to other policies/technologies.

Indeed. I would enjoy a parsing of that Youtube interview video I linked to in hopes that I can better see both sides. Perhaps Krauss will debate her. [I will bet an ice cream sundae this will not happen within the next, say, 6 months. Any takers?]

Her webiste, btw, is Climate Etc.

 

[bwana4swahili]

Vernon,

First, I think you quoted Helio's post, but seem to be responding to mine.

And, you are misrepresenting my post. I am not limiting my attention to sea level rise, it is just that I am relating those projections to my home, which is already in jeopardy, so I am familiar with the reports that contain those projections along with the other aspects that you seem to think I need to be told about.

It is strange that you seem to somehow think that you are well versed in multiple areas of science, while others are not and we need you to tell us what to think.

What I am seeing in your posts is a familiar attitude typically held by activists who present one-sided arguments against various forms of energy production, while not actually supporting any alternative. That is a destructive political posture - so you are part of the problem.

What is needed is an honest discussion of the pros, cons, feasibility and time-frame for actual changes in the way we produce and use energy from various sources.

And, that needs to realistically deal with human nature and the actual politics involved.

So, to be useful, I suggest that you start advocating for some policies, and be williing to realistically discus their costs, risks, feasibility, and possible schedules for direct comparison to other policies/technologies.

In that regard, I suggest that you actually look at what Helio was saying about the risk of death due to cold as well as due to heat. Mitigating both requires substantial energy usage.

And, if you think that some of us are missing a fact that is relevant, just state the fact and provide some support for it (maybe just a link) rather than just imply that we don't know what we need to know to make proper decisions, so we should take your word for what we should be doing.

"What is needed is an honest discussion of the pros, cons, feasibility and time-frame for actual changes in the way we produce and use energy from various sources. "
This is the problem with most eco-activist demands and government promises; they are totally UNREALISTIC at best and laughable in the extreme!
The current climate problems aren't going to be resolved by 2030 or 2050 or even 2100. Even if we somehow shutdown all CO2 emissions into the atmosphere tomorrow it will take the Earth 25-50 years to self-correct and a goodly portion of the Earth's population would die in the process. Until realistic plans are put in place people are simply going to laugh at the groups involved and carry on with life as usual.

 

[Helio]

Even if we somehow shutdown all CO2 emissions into the atmosphere tomorrow it will take the Earth 25-50 years to self-correct...

Yes, I don't understand it but there is a momentum effect that must be taken into account.

... and a goodly portion of the Earth's population would die in the process.

I suspect, and hope, this may not be true.

I still haven't seen a consensus on what temperature is ideal for our planet. Our planet's average temperature is about 57F. Heck, my wife and I can't even agree on an ideal temp. in our house, but it ain't 57.

I would bet that Canadians are far less "frightened", or even concerned, than those to their warmer south.

 

[bwana4swahili]

Yes, I don't understand it but there is a momentum effect that must be taken into account.

I suspect, and hope, this may not be true.

I still haven't seen a consensus on what temperature is ideal for our planet. Our planet's average temperature is about 57F. Heck, my wife and I can't even agree on an ideal temp. in our house, but it ain't 57.

I would bet that Canadians are far less "frightened", or even concerned, than those to their warmer south.

Personally I think global warming will be beneficial to countries in the far northern hemisphere, i.e.: Canada and Russia.

 

[Helio]

FWIW, I just read that there is a new Cl-Fi (Climate Fiction) paperback (Winter Games, Church).

"Winter Games introduces readers to a passionate band of scientists sacrificing themselves to save millions of helpless human beings whose lives are threatened by cold." [Amazon]

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Personally I think global warming will be beneficial to countries in the far northern hemisphere, i.e.: Canada and Russia.

From an ecological point, probably. But, not assuredly. There is the "snow blitz theory" about how ice ages start, which involves an ice-free Arctic Ocean providing large amounts of moisture for creating snowfall in the upper northern latitudes during winter. This is theorized to change the albedo during the summer months due to persistent snow cover on land, which cools the Arctic region during the summer months compared to present conditions. I am not making bets on that turning around our current warming problem. But, it might make the Arctic a lot less balmy than some are thinking. On the other hand, there are reports of the upper part of Greenland being forested about 2 million years ago (see https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ancient-dna-greenland-ecosystem-unlike-any-now-found-on-earth/ ), so who knows for sure.

A bigger problem for Canada might be "immigration" from South and Central America, not to mention the United States. The U.S. is already seeing about a million "illegal" immigrants per year over the Mexican border. If they and we in the U.S. start going over the much longer, undefended U.S. Canadian border due to drastic climate change, Canada could have a huge over-population problem very quickly. Russia would probably just try to defend its border with deadly force. That might not work forever.

But, the real problem is that these mass migrations would (will?) probably be caused by major famines and pandemics in the less wealthy countries, and probably wars over resources and borders, too. To the extent that growing conflicts get destructive of our technological support infrastructure, there can be general collapse of what we need to support 8 billion (or more) humans, and that will be a threat to everrybody. For really distopian conditions, we only need to look at Haiti today for intranational breakdown due to gang warfare and to Ukraine for international conflicts that destroy infrastructure as a goal.

 

[bwana4swahili]

From an ecological point, probably. But, not assuredly. There is the "snow blitz theory" about how ice ages start, which involves an ice-free Arctic Ocean providing large amounts of moisture for creating snowfall in the upper northern latitudes during winter. This is theorized to change the albedo during the summer months due to persistent snow cover on land, which cools the Arctic region during the summer months compared to present conditions. I am not making bets on that turning around our current warming problem. But, it might make the Arctic a lot less balmy than some are thinking. On the other hand, there are reports of the upper part of Greenland being forested about 2 million years ago (see https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ancient-dna-greenland-ecosystem-unlike-any-now-found-on-earth/ ), so who knows for sure.

A bigger problem for Canada might be "immigration" from South and Central America, not to mention the United States. The U.S. is already seeing about a million "illegal" immigrants per year over the Mexican border. If they and we in the U.S. start going over the much longer, undefended U.S. Canadian border due to drastic climate change, Canada could have a huge over-population problem very quickly. Russia would probably just try to defend its border with deadly force. That might not work forever.

But, the real problem is that these mass migrations would (will?) probably be caused by major famines and pandemics in the less wealthy countries, and probably wars over resources and borders, too. To the extent that growing conflicts get destructive of our technological support infrastructure, there can be general collapse of what we need to support 8 billion (or more) humans, and that will be a threat to everrybody. For really distopian conditions, we only need to look at Haiti today for intranational breakdown due to gang warfare and to Ukraine for international conflicts that destroy infrastructure as a goal.

Legal or illegal immigration will definitely be a problem when regions become uninhabitable! And it is already happening.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Legal or illegal immigration will definitely be a problem when regions become uninhabitable! And it is already happening.

It is happening now due to over-population. And, it seems to have happened for the last million years, too. So, "uninhabitable" isn't so much the issure as "better over there than here".

Strangly right now, there are people coming into the U.S. as "refugees" from places that more affluent people in the U.S. go for vacations "in paradise".

It will just get more desparate as places get truly uninhabitable.