• Slovene@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    283
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    Meanwhile USA is stealing Venezuelan oil. Good job everbody. 👍

    • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Well. At least it will guarantee the USA’s eventual fall from power.

      Can you imagine the tech bros and anti-intectuals groveling to rejoin the scientific community?

      Unfortunately science is not a morality structure.

    • Diurnambule@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Stay positive buddy.stay positive buddy, if oil become obsolete the struggle of the us will end. Their trouble is price of oil. They need to inject oil in the system to reduce price and stay competitive with solar, etc. And they have to attack other country to maintain the system. It stay viable for long they will have to go renewables.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      144
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Just a few years ago US labs were the first to generate more power than they put into a fusion reactor, it was one of the most important breakthroughs to date in fusion.

      Even under the shitheap Trump, the US is continuing to research into fusion and building stellarators such as Infinity 1 in Tennessee.

      Europe likewise is leading breakthroughs such as with Wendelstein 7-X stellarator in Germany lasting for 43 seconds. This is being improved with the new Proxima Alpha stellarator being built.

      China’s EAST reactor had a breakthrough when they achieved 1,000 seconds last year. While Europes recent ITER tokamak should be achieving its first plasma in the coming years.

      Fusion is a global effort, and scientists are benefiting from the works being put in elsewhere. Stellarators and Tokamak are both breaking new grounds each year, and each has their own pros and cons.

      Don’t fall for any propaganda trying to claim anyone is “winning”.

      • thorhop@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        These comment sections can be a place of puerility and defeatism. Thanks for being the difference.

      • hanrahan@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        it was one of the most important breakthroughs to date in fusion

        What ? It was not really. Here’s a physicist discussing why.

        https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/fusion-foolery/

        In the end, the NIF fusion accomplishment might be called a stunt. Stunts explore what we can do (often after an insane amount of preparation, practice, and failure), rather than what’s practical. Stunts hide the pains and present an appearance of ease and grace, but it’s a show.

        The “more energy out than laser energy in” equation masks several fundamental problems. NIF’s doped glass lasers have an efficiency of about 0.5 percent, meaning that they would have sucked in roughly 400 megajoules of energy from the grid in order to produce the 2.1 megajoules of light energy…

        To be fair the hype machine was from the press not the scientists

        Let’s pause to say: well done! Honestly. No sarcasm. What they did was ridiculously hard, and it finally worked after more than a decade of trying. They actually produced a significant number of fusion events! There’s no faking that, and I’d like to see you try. So let’s be clear that I’m not knocking the accomplishment in itself. My major beef is how we interpret the implications for society.

        • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Stunts also draw attention to stuff. Its yet to be seen if its a net positive but it did help me get up to speed on the current state of fusion technology.

      • sibachian@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        oil, coal and nuclear are clearly not winning.

        we could solve the worlds energy problems today but they’d never be applied simply because oil exists. its literally why the US just attacked venezuela. They could have built another reactor or windmills or whatever the fuck else they feel they need if energy was the reason. but energy has nothing to do with energy and all to do with being a natural monopoly that’s making a small group of people quite wealthy.

        • Deceptichum@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Yes but those are not fusion. Fusion is the ‘holy-grail’ of energy technology. It is a long term goal that we must work towards. It’s a problem of science.

          For now renewables are the cheapest, quickest, and best method we have. They should be receiving all the money wasted on those 3 methods you’ve mentioned above. That’s a problem of politics.

          We easily have the means to achieve both, we are hamstrung by shortsighted corporate interests and yes this applies to China as well.

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            I gotta be honest, as amazing as the promise of limitless fusion energy is, I’m really not optimistic that it’ll be a major or even an important technology for the energy sector, at least for the next 200 or so years.

            The thing is, we already have fission power and we’re struggling to use it right now. The biggest hurdle for fission is the upfront costs of building a plant, the time needed to build a plant (construction can take up to a decade), and ongoing costs. While nuclear power is probably one of man’s greatest achievements, it’s also generally pretty expensive. And fusion has almost all the same strengths and drawbacks, but bigger. I do believe we will achieve sustainable fusion, probably soon. But I’m certain that while it will “work”, it will also prove to be the most expensive form of power generation with the largest upfront costs that the world has ever seen. And I don’t expect those prices to come down for a very long time.

            Personally, I think anyone who expects fusion to be some kind of miracle technology is kidding themselves. And if people really want a miracle technology in the energy sector, keep your eyes geothermal, that’s the only tech I see that has any potential to become cheap, limitless, and constant.

            I do think fusion will have good applications, but it will likely remain niche for a while. I definitely look forward to seeing spacecraft propelled by ion drives and powered by fusion, it would be amazing to be able to get to Jupiter and back on one tank of (xenon) gas.

            • Potatar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Fission has the “long (1+ centuries) term storage solution of the byproducts” problem (output is dirty and long lasting). Fusion has no such big problem (output is dirty and short lasting).

              I like hyperboles so here: If everyone did fission in their backyard, we’d have a big and long lasting problem. If everyone did fusion in their backyard, we’d have a medium and short lasting problem.

              • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 hours ago

                This is true, the waste issue is different with these two technologies, but I don’t think it’s all that significant in either case.

                Fission produces some awful waste, but what I like to point out is just how little it produces. My favorite example is nuclear submarines. Nuke subs have to come to port every so often for food, equipment, supplies, etc, but not because they’re low on fuel. They don’t carry a lot, about 500kg (half ton) and that lasts them a very long time. So how often do they need to be refueled? Once, most subs are refueled just once in their ~30 year lifetime. Some subs will be decommissioned before ever refuelling, using just one set of uranium fuel rods for their whole life.

                Edit: I wanted to visualize how much 500kg is, and I know uranium is heavy but I really didn’t have any idea what a half ton would look like. Turns out, it’s about 26 liters, 1 cubic foot. (Though, ideally your uranium wouldn’t be measured in either of those units, you really don’t want liters of liquid uranium, and that’s exactly where a solid cube is headed too…)

                Given the tiny volume of waste produced over such a long time… We can figure out the storage. Even if the solution is costly, there’s really not much to store, this is very manageable.

                So yeah, I’m not saying waste isn’t an issue for nuclear power, it is. But I think it’s not the biggest drawback, it seems like the overall cost is still the bigger problem in operating a plant.

                • Potatar@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  My problem is that waste being unborn next generation’s problem. Who are we to demand them to keep guarding our shit? With fusion, the waste is the alive-generation’s problem.

                  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    You could say that of any infrastructure. Bridges are expenses, ongoing maintenance for them is a burden our children will have to bear. But I expect they’ll be willing to do it.

                    The fact is, most of what we do affects the next generation, we just don’t think about it, or can’t quantify it. The only difference with nuclear is that we can quantify it.

          • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            24 hours ago

            It doesn’t matter if the people with the war machines are the ones who control the grids,lines,pipes,etc.

            The ‘holy grail’ will most likely result in further top down dominance. As god king tyrants demonstrate their continued uselessness to humanity by creating more powerful and destructive weapons and hoarding the infinite power supply for their own.

        • BoJackHorseman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Nuclear is different from oil and coal.

          They’re not solving the world’s problems not because oil exists, but because big powerful private oil companies exist who lobby the government and publish propaganda to manipulate the public. And big oil companies exist because of capitalism. But at this point, you start spewing all the anti communism propaganda you’ve been fed since your birth.

        • chocrates@piefed.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          19 hours ago

          God, I wonder if we could fund a next gen fission plant with what we already spent on Venezuela

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Passenger vehicles and homes and most businesses could be covered by solar and wind, but oil will still be used for quite a while for cargo shipping and commercial trucks and things like tires. We could use a lot less, but oil is going to hang around for quite a while. Passenger vehicles account for about 25% of oil used.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          21 hours ago

          With US being the leading oil producer and stealing all of Venezuela’s’s oil, we’re positioning ourselves to control the world’s supply …… as the world yawns and continues moving to the future of tech that we helped develop then threw away

      • HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        24 hours ago

        I’m assuming the sole reason the Orange cunt hasn’t destroyed the US’s fusion research is because he wants to give exclusive rights to build and use it to Vault-Tech the tech broligarchs who bribe him.

        • Deceptichum@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          It always will be until the day it isn’t. Breakthrough’s cannot be timelined or predicted.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        But drones can. Little propeller drones are killing Russian invaders by the thousands

        • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Trump and other dictators are vain (uh, reviving an outdated class of naval ship and naming it after yourself sound familiar?) so they’ll prefer bombers, tanks, and rockets over some little robots with little propellers. They disdain things that look weak regardless of their usefulness.