01-06-2017, 11:07 AM
(01-04-2017, 08:55 PM)Stewy Wrote: A couple of things:
#1 - Natural Gas is a fossil fuel - hehe
#2 - Even if we have economically viable fusion reactors for power plants, that doesn't account for the fact transportation depends on oil at a 92% clip. Are we going to convert the whole world to electric engines, including trains, tractor trailers, airplanes....anything that uses diesel or heavier fuels, in 50 years? I seriously doubt it.
#3 - Just an FYI - Electricity production by fossil fuel type - https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
#4 - Oil Usage by product - http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/fossil-fuels/ - scroll down - lots of good info here.
The problem as I see it is multi fold.
First you have to achieve, control and perfect fusion, safely.
Second you have to make it viable on a large scale
Third you have to make it economic for power generation
Fourth to get it economic for everyday use requires an entire change in the world infrastructure, and THIS is what will take time and why fossil fuels have not just a life past 50 years, but will be required for centuries to come unless you want no lubricants, no plastics, no chemicals, no Styrofoam, etc.
What I'm trying to point out is that getting rid of fossil fuels, isn't just about fusion.....it's about changing just about every aspect and convenience of our every day lives. Fusion is just one innovation, but completely replacing fossil fuels would require separate and equally challenging innovations in multitudes of separate disciplines. With that said my guess is that there are several cases where a particular chemical or lubricant or plastic can be created in ways that do not require fossil fuels, but they aren't economic. It follows that if you remove natural gas from power generation (33% of total electricity comes from natural gas), that doesn't make the worlds reserves of natural gas go away, but just makes it cheaper, making it even more viable for heating, home use and industry, thus making it even more difficult for "other" products to replace them (Yes that was an awful sentence - sue me I'm wasn't an English major).
The way I see it, fusion will extend the life of fossil fuels, not end them. But if fusion delivers on it's promise we can certainly generate of electricity in a much more clean manner and make electric cars much more viable options. I'd say we're at least 150-200 years away from the personal use fusion seen in Back to the Future and Fallout 4 however.
I've been a fusion junky myself. It's fascinating and frankly scary stuff. It's kinda like when they detonated the first A-bomb and some were seriously worried about a chain reaction setting the atmosphere on fire (or was that the hydrogen bomb....or both). No one really knows what will happen when we achieve true fusion. My guess is likely nothing catastrophic because of the conditions and containment needed to induce true fusion (tremendous pressure, temperature and magnetic fields, etc.). What I'm saying is the fusion reaction might run out of control, but once the containment conditions fail, the reaction will likely stop.....I hope.
Sorry for quoting this entire section, but what is the impetus for change in our everyday lives now? Once an alternative to fossil fuel energy is viable, I believe that will spark industry to develop new technologies to incorporate into our everyday lives so they profit from it.
If you build it, they will come. So to speak.
