Energy is on everyone front burner today (pun intended). At the top of the list may be gasoline, fuel oil, more generally fossil fuels, 'renewables like wind, solar or geothermal or nuclear (yeah that nasty radio active stuff.) But since the 1950's instead of fission (breaking atoms apart to create energy [think E=MC2, atomic bomb) nations around the world have been working on FUSION. The process of joining two elements (or isotopes) together to produce a 'heavier' element. In this case it involves changing hydrogen into helium.
The result of this process (when successful, according to the mathematical theory) delivers "more energy out then went into making it happen." Currently, as of last August (2021) for a "moment" IT HAPPENED! Yes, some 70 years of trying it has actually occurred. The race is on by several countries to extend the amount of time it (sustainability) and develop the application for wide spread use. (PS - - no radioactive waste! )
Here is a great video of the details and hopefully inspiration for our next generation.
Interesting topic. I have some criticisms of the video, however, and the rhetoric that has been surrounding the topic of fusion energy since the 1950s.
Every subsequent decade, scientists claim "we are only a couple of years away from achieving nuclear fusion"--the goal being what the video calls "ignition" or a stable, self-suffient system that produces more energy than what is being put into the system. This is a classic example of "moving the goalposts", or "dangling the carrot before the mule". How many scientists have made an entire career, plus retirement, by continuing to make these claims, not deliver on promises, and cash in on tax payer dollars?
Achieving "ignition" also seems highly problematic. Even after nearly 70 years of development, ignition has only been 70% achieved. While that sounds close, you might as well be making the claim that you have solved 70% of the cure for cancer, or you have mastered 70% the speed of light in flight. Progress, yes, but pragmatically no closer to the actual objective.
Listening to this rhetoric and the stated objectives of these scientists, it also seems that these people are trying to violate or somehow circumvent the Laws of Thermodynamics, specifically, the Law of the Conservation of Energy and the Law of the Conservation of Mass. "Science" has classically taught us that it is a physical impossiblity to create a system that will produce more energy than placed into it (accounting for Work). Yet somehow, fusion will become the "New Science" and redefine these long-standing and tested principals.
Every resource or publication I have looked at regarding fusion also makes the two following claims:
- Stars produce unlimited energy
- Fusion, based on stars, will produce unlimited energy
Both claims are patently false. The core tenets of astrophysics teaches us that stars indeed have a finite fuel supply. As this fuel is consumed and the star's potential energy is expended, each star degrades and goes through various steps in its life cycle. For larger stars this expenditure of fuel can lead to collapse, and even supernovae and/or the creation of a black hole.
I think the takeaway for me is that the language of science, including its boasts and claims, are not absolute. Thus, when we are told to "follow the science", we should be extremely skeptical--perhaps rejecting that course of action strictly out of caution. I would also point out that even though these scientific "super projects" are alluring, due to their cost and complexity, executing and deploying such technology requires social reconstruction. And pushing towards global projects of this nature ultimately opens the door for global socialism/communism.
The promise of free energy is attractive, but the actual cost--the human cost--may be too high.
"Illigitime non carborundum"
"Don't let the bastards grind you down"
China already has a fusion power plant or "artificial sun":
It also sounds like they have plans to build new, larger fusion plants in the near future. But it also sounds like they haven't achieved real fusion or 'ignition' yet.
Is fusion in a star really 'self-sustaining', considering it will eventually burn up all of its fuel and collapse?
"BOO!"
A guide, on finding a man who has lost his way, brings him back to the right path—he does not mock and jeer at him and then take himself off. You also must show the unlearned man the truth, and you will see that he will follow. But so long as you do not show it to him, you should not mock, but rather feel your own incapacity.
Epictetus
Do not rely on following the degree of understanding that you have discovered, but simply think, “This is not enough”.
Tsunetomo Yamamoto