84 points

Honestly? A major breakthrough in fusion, or to a lesser extent, any other clean energy. We’ve decarbonised a decent chunk of the world’s energy profile, but there’s a strong financial incentive that politicians are vulnerable to protecting oil and gas, slowing down further decarbonisation. Batteries and supercapacitors also could do the trick.

permalink
report
reply
22 points

I don’t think fusion would be as useful a technology as it would have been a few decades ago. Now renewables (wind, solar, hydro) seem like more and more as the clean and cheap energy of the future. The biggest problem of storage is rapidly being solved with batteries springing up everywhere.

The real problem with fusion is that even if it worked, the plants would be very complex and expensive. It would be much cheaper and reliable to build solar, wind and batteries instead.

Having operational fusion reactors would be cool as hell, but it wouldn’t have that much impact on our lives in the end.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

Respectfully, I disagree. We’ve entered an AI boom, and right now, the star of the show is in a bit of a gangly awkward teenage phase. But already, these large data models are eating up mountains of energy. We’ll certainly make the technology more energy efficient, but we’re also going to rely on it more and more as it gets better. Any efficiency gains will be eaten up by AI models many times more complex and numerous than what we have now.

As climate change warms the globe, we’re all going to be running our air conditioning more, and nowhere will that be more true than the server centers where we centralize AI. To combat climate change, we may figure out ways of stripping carbon from the air and this will require energy too.

Solar is good. It’s meeting much of our need. Wind and hydroelectric fill gaps when solar isn’t enough. We have some battery infrastructure for night time and we’ll get better at that too. But there will come a point where we reach saturation of available land space.

If we can supplement our energy supply with a technology that requires a relatively small footprint (when it comes to powering a Metropolitan area), can theoretically produce a ton of power, requires resources that are plentiful on Earth like deuterium, and doesn’t produce a toxic byproduct, I think we should do everything in our power to make this technology feasible. But I can certainly agree that we should try to get our needs completely met with other renewables in the meantime.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Fusion is likely the end-game power gen tech for humanity, assuming no new physics (and excluding Dyson structures). For the long term, it likely will be the most useful way of generating mass amounts of electricity you can get, and access to more energy enables more possibilities of all sorts of things, enabling even things that are extremely impractical today due to their energy needs

For example, carbon capture becomes a possibility, and stuff like mass desalination. And then you could, in theory, go even more extreme with stuff like terraforming mars at human timescales, with enough energy. Of course this depends how practical and efficient fusion reactors actually would be, but with enough energy you can do so so much

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

If we have a lot of cheap energy, we might be able to do industrial-scale carbon capture.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

While I agree with what you’ve said, I’ve always felt fusion and other such tech is the future of long distance space travel, not Earth based energy use. Wind and hydro are useless in space and solar has issues with power accumulation the further away from a star you go. We will still need some kind of “fuel” based energy source if we’re ever to enter deep space and cross the gaps(unless battery tech increases much further to the point that a “battery” lasts a significant portion of the vehicles lifetime). Even then, you’d need recharge stations at each end or to park by a star to refuel in between.

We have fusion/fission now. That kind of battery tech is still a ways off. Feels shortsighted to ignore nuclear now just because it’s not perfect in this specific environment. After all, name any vehicle not powered by nuclear that can run for 20-30 years before it needs to refuel/recharge. No battery tech can even come close currently.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

I don’t think it’s gonna get cheaper than renewables, they’re literally using free energy without needing any human intervention aside from inspection and repairs. The issue is the oil and gas companies paying the politicians. Also right-wing parties that do everything they can to keep emissions up just cause. No new technology can fix those issues.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

We’ve decarbonised a decent chunk of the world’s energy profile

Unfortunately, things like AI continue to fuel our hunger for power, preventing fossil fuels from being phased out… and as such, CO2 production continues to accelerate uncontrollably.

Yes, atmospheric CO2 production continues to accelerate. It hasn’t even begun to slow down, much less reach a steady state or reverse.

And this is excluding the feedback loops (arctic permafrost, methyl hydrates, etc.) that are now beginning to cook off in nature.

We are still solidly on the “business as usual” path towards civilizational collapse by some point in the 2050s, and functional extinction by some point between 2100 and 2200.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Nuclear is going through a breakthrough and it’s coming along at a neat net zero.

In a breakthrough experiment, nuclear fusion finally makes more energy than it uses

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Sort of. It made more energy than the lasers that actually caused the reaction. It still used vastly more energy than that to actually power those lasers. We are still far off but it was a major stepping point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The large storage batteries that use sodium ion. They should be able to get like 5,000 full cycles before they degrade and can be buried or stored outside. That and a solar array on a roof should let most anyone be completely off grid. Full solar house that should last for 15 years before the system needs replaced. The batteries will last longer and be cheaper than lithium. Solar panel prices are consistently getting cheaper.

I think in 5 years time there will be a lot of the electrical grid system (for most who will be still attached to the grid) just getting power almost completely from solar, and storing enough in these batteries for the nights and cloudy days.

permalink
report
parent
reply
62 points

Everybody is going to groan, but solid state batteries. That would be a huge sea change, not just for cars, but also air travel.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

I have good news for you, then. We’re now past the “discovery” phase and we’re at the implementation phase with solid state batteries, as you can actually buy production models: https://yoshinopower.com/

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah but they’re not there yet in terms of mass deployment and that’s still going to take some more technical breakthroughs. They’ll get there eventually but there might be some new discovery any day that would greatly speed up the process.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yes, it’s brand new, but the mass manufacturing difficulties have been resolved. We might not have whatever future iteration of the technology you’re looking for, but it is unquestionably here and future developments are likely to be incremental rather than revolutionary.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I don’t know about air travel. For comparison, Li batteries are about 200-300 Wh/kg, with solid state reading 3-4x that.

Jetfuel is 11000 Wh/kg. Hydrogen is 39000 Wh/kg.

By volume they might have an advantage but planes tend to care more about weight

permalink
report
parent
reply
62 points

Scalable, lab grown meat operations.

permalink
report
reply
21 points
*

Came here to say this. The implications for food security would be massive, but it would also have an enormous impact on climate change, cutting GHG emissions by one-third.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

I came here for this one.

I don’t follow news on alt-meat super closely, but I thought the scalability thing was not much of a concern, and I thought we were mainly at the steps of raising demand and meating or beating price parity with the real thing.

Something like an alt-meat only fast food spot or something trendy that can only be done with lab created protein could be all it takes to cement its place in society, so I feel we’re just waiting for that tipping point due to product that mainly already exists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

meating

Nice one

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I knew you guys would pick up on that one!

The spell checker really did not want me to make that little joke, but I knew it would be appreciated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I thought it was a good gag, but I didn’t want it to sound like meat beating. 😜

permalink
report
parent
reply
59 points

MRNA vaccines for cancer, HIV and others. Moderna clinical trials have been real good.

Imagine getting a cancer diagnosis, then 30 days later getting a tailored treatment that eliminated the cancer.

https://investors.modernatx.com/news/news-details/2022/Moderna-and-Merck-Announce-mRNA-4157V940-an-Investigational-Personalized-mRNA-Cancer-Vaccine-in-Combination-with-KEYTRUDAR-pembrolizumab-Met-Primary-Efficacy-Endpoint-in-Phase-2b-KEYNOTE-942-Trial/default.aspx

Also vote. Because one party system has decided to side with anti vaxxers. The other has not. Cancer numbers have been steadily rising, second only to heart disease as a cause of death. There is a solid chance you’re going to get cancer.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Voting is mandatory here. So no need to tell me to vote.

And I’m not sure which party is anti Vax.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

In the US? I think it is quite easy to tell which one is against vaccinations (hint: the one with Trump)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Do you know about preferential voting? It makes the 2 party system not so bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
51 points

I second the lemmy saying there is a considerable gap between discovery and implementation.

But to answer your question, I believe we are due some major breakthrough regarding psilocybin and other psychedelic substances which have been banned since the 60s. Research is well underway and with our current technology + knowledge in neuroscience we’re due to catch up quickly, unless everything gets tangled in too much red tape.

Improvement in mental health has a pretty immediately impact in our lives after all.

permalink
report
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 9.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.4K

    Posts

  • 73K

    Comments