Edit: this ended up being rather off the cuff and, while I stand by my opinions, I may have ended up trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with the specific point I was trying to make here....
Edit: this ended up being rather off the cuff and, while I stand by my opinions, I may have ended up trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with the specific point I was trying to make here. Original comment below.
The Energy Department called it “a major scientific breakthrough decades in the making that will pave the way for advancements in national defense and the future of clean power.”
A bit sad that the first point accompanying such an important breakthrough essentially boils down to its military applications. Fusion can absolutely be powerfully weaponized if captured to even a fraction of its theoretical max output, but it is highly concerning to me that the prospect of essentially 'free energy' is seen by its developers as, instead of a potentially liberating step forward for humanity, just the latest tool in an arsenal towards preserving the current hegemony.
It's just lip service to ensure that the funding continues. We already have fusion weapons and have had them for ages now, this breakthrough is about controlled fusion. Even in terms of power...
It's just lip service to ensure that the funding continues. We already have fusion weapons and have had them for ages now, this breakthrough is about controlled fusion. Even in terms of power generation, fission reactors have been more than sufficient on subs and the like, and will continue to be.
Even if we get net positive fusion, it's going to be way too large and require way too much infrastructure to fit on vehicles compared to fission, which we've gotten pretty good at.
If fusion is used for national defense, it will truly be for national defense (or, at most, border conflicts) - that is, using the energy for defense systems within a nation's own borders just for logistical reasons. It's not going to be particularly more useful for power projections because of the limitations that will be on it for a while.
In terms of power projection, we already have nuclear subs with fission reactors that can run indefinitely and so stealthily they can be anywhere in the world that are armed with thermonuclear weapons.
Although I agree with the overall sentiment here, I think it is worth pointing out that "national defense" does not have to specifically mean developing new weapons. National security has been...
Although I agree with the overall sentiment here, I think it is worth pointing out that "national defense" does not have to specifically mean developing new weapons. National security has been inextricably linked to energy for a long time, with oil as a strategic vital interest (PDF warning for How Oil Influences U.S. National Security, a good overview from an a 2013 article in International Security). Reducing reliance on limited natural resources will dramatically change international relations and balance of power, and potentially reduce conflict worldwide.
That's actually a really good point. It's pretty easy to get caught looking for political language used to soften the blow, and I think I may have ascribed a meaning similar to the infamous phrase...
That's actually a really good point. It's pretty easy to get caught looking for political language used to soften the blow, and I think I may have ascribed a meaning similar to the infamous phrase "national security" when that undertone may have been unintentional. Either way, I'd rather err on the more critical side than not.
If you need a quick and dirty example of how energy affects national security, consider the relationship the political class of the US has with Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud has the upper crust...
If you need a quick and dirty example of how energy affects national security, consider the relationship the political class of the US has with Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud has the upper crust of the US over an oil barrel to such a degree that they'll ignore little things like Saudi complicity in the September 11 attacks.
In short, reliance on foreign sources of energy is incompatible with national security, full stop.
FYI the oil thing hasn’t been true since fracking was invented. Fracking single handedly turned the US from a net energy importer to one of the largest energy exporters in the world.
FYI the oil thing hasn’t been true since fracking was invented. Fracking single handedly turned the US from a net energy importer to one of the largest energy exporters in the world.
So now it's a matter of just the money from oil being invaluable to politicians rather than both the money and energy dependence. I don't think that meaningfully impacts my point.
So now it's a matter of just the money from oil being invaluable to politicians rather than both the money and energy dependence.
I mean, military is gonna military, and given that the Dept. of Energy is in charge of the nukes as well as domestic energy concerns it's not unexpected that they'll frame it that way. I, for one,...
I mean, military is gonna military, and given that the Dept. of Energy is in charge of the nukes as well as domestic energy concerns it's not unexpected that they'll frame it that way. I, for one, would love to see someone put in the tens of billions of dollars to research and develop a new power generation technology and then give it away. That doesn't seem likely with our current crop of people and organizations who have the resources to do so, though.
I'm slightly confused by this comment. Fusion is already weaponised - the thermonuclear bomb is a fusion bomb. Of course, if we get fusion reactors to work (and can make them small) they'll end up...
I'm slightly confused by this comment. Fusion is already weaponised - the thermonuclear bomb is a fusion bomb. Of course, if we get fusion reactors to work (and can make them small) they'll end up powering military ships and submarines, but I'd expect a lot more peaceful applications from a working fusion reactor.
My issue is a nitpick on how the energy development is being framed in the statement; how it's worded can greatly affect how people think about it. The current statement read to me like it's...
My issue is a nitpick on how the energy development is being framed in the statement; how it's worded can greatly affect how people think about it. The current statement read to me like it's trying to appease 'defense budget' hawks, and I just don't like the characterization even though, yes, thermonuclear bombs are already a thing.
It's highly possible that I have missed the mark and read subtext out of the DoE's writing that doesn't exist (as I believe I touched on elsewhere in this thread)
So, NIF’s primary mission isn’t fusion power research. It’s actually nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship (the energy angle is just a nice PR bonus). The goal is to test weapon material behavior...
So, NIF’s primary mission isn’t fusion power research. It’s actually nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship (the energy angle is just a nice PR bonus). The goal is to test weapon material behavior at conditions of thermonuclear fusion (i.e., what you’d find inside a nuclear explosion). One of the reasons ignition is a big deal is that it (presumably) validates their computing models, which is important since we haven’t tested nuclear weapons since 1992, and currently rely on subcritical experiments, component testing, and computer modeling to verify the U.S. nuclear deterrent is working.
Edit: this ended up being rather off the cuff and, while I stand by my opinions, I may have ended up trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with the specific point I was trying to make here. Original comment below.
A bit sad that the first point accompanying such an important breakthrough essentially boils down to its military applications. Fusion can absolutely be powerfully weaponized if captured to even a fraction of its theoretical max output, but it is highly concerning to me that the prospect of essentially 'free energy' is seen by its developers as, instead of a potentially liberating step forward for humanity, just the latest tool in an arsenal towards preserving the current hegemony.
It's just lip service to ensure that the funding continues. We already have fusion weapons and have had them for ages now, this breakthrough is about controlled fusion. Even in terms of power generation, fission reactors have been more than sufficient on subs and the like, and will continue to be.
Even if we get net positive fusion, it's going to be way too large and require way too much infrastructure to fit on vehicles compared to fission, which we've gotten pretty good at.
If fusion is used for national defense, it will truly be for national defense (or, at most, border conflicts) - that is, using the energy for defense systems within a nation's own borders just for logistical reasons. It's not going to be particularly more useful for power projections because of the limitations that will be on it for a while.
In terms of power projection, we already have nuclear subs with fission reactors that can run indefinitely and so stealthily they can be anywhere in the world that are armed with thermonuclear weapons.
Although I agree with the overall sentiment here, I think it is worth pointing out that "national defense" does not have to specifically mean developing new weapons. National security has been inextricably linked to energy for a long time, with oil as a strategic vital interest (PDF warning for How Oil Influences U.S. National Security, a good overview from an a 2013 article in International Security). Reducing reliance on limited natural resources will dramatically change international relations and balance of power, and potentially reduce conflict worldwide.
That's actually a really good point. It's pretty easy to get caught looking for political language used to soften the blow, and I think I may have ascribed a meaning similar to the infamous phrase "national security" when that undertone may have been unintentional. Either way, I'd rather err on the more critical side than not.
If you need a quick and dirty example of how energy affects national security, consider the relationship the political class of the US has with Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud has the upper crust of the US over an oil barrel to such a degree that they'll ignore little things like Saudi complicity in the September 11 attacks.
In short, reliance on foreign sources of energy is incompatible with national security, full stop.
FYI the oil thing hasn’t been true since fracking was invented. Fracking single handedly turned the US from a net energy importer to one of the largest energy exporters in the world.
So now it's a matter of just the money from oil being invaluable to politicians rather than both the money and energy dependence.
I don't think that meaningfully impacts my point.
Also related, the "resource curse" -- how the presence of oil in a country contributes to authoritarianism, corruption and violence.
I mean, military is gonna military, and given that the Dept. of Energy is in charge of the nukes as well as domestic energy concerns it's not unexpected that they'll frame it that way. I, for one, would love to see someone put in the tens of billions of dollars to research and develop a new power generation technology and then give it away. That doesn't seem likely with our current crop of people and organizations who have the resources to do so, though.
I'm slightly confused by this comment. Fusion is already weaponised - the thermonuclear bomb is a fusion bomb. Of course, if we get fusion reactors to work (and can make them small) they'll end up powering military ships and submarines, but I'd expect a lot more peaceful applications from a working fusion reactor.
My issue is a nitpick on how the energy development is being framed in the statement; how it's worded can greatly affect how people think about it. The current statement read to me like it's trying to appease 'defense budget' hawks, and I just don't like the characterization even though, yes, thermonuclear bombs are already a thing.
It's highly possible that I have missed the mark and read subtext out of the DoE's writing that doesn't exist (as I believe I touched on elsewhere in this thread)
So, NIF’s primary mission isn’t fusion power research. It’s actually nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship (the energy angle is just a nice PR bonus). The goal is to test weapon material behavior at conditions of thermonuclear fusion (i.e., what you’d find inside a nuclear explosion). One of the reasons ignition is a big deal is that it (presumably) validates their computing models, which is important since we haven’t tested nuclear weapons since 1992, and currently rely on subcritical experiments, component testing, and computer modeling to verify the U.S. nuclear deterrent is working.
t. DOE contractor
Archived alternate article with more detail.