Total deuterium fusion energy available on Earth

Deep analysis

Quote from JedRothwell

Mitchell Swartz wrote "a cubic mile of seawater contains the fuel equivalent of all the Earth's oil reserves." That got me to thinking. I ran the numbers, and I believe that is about right, if I have done my arithmetic correctly. I assume this means the fuel is deuterium. I estimate it is about 6 times oil reserves. That is a rough estimate.

1 cubic mile = 4.17E+09 cubic meters = 4.17E+12 kg of water

1 kg of ordinary water is 0.015 at% deuterium. When fused in D-D fusion, this deuterium produces 13,000 MJ

4.17E+12 liters * 13,000 MJ = 5.42E+16 MJ deuterium energy in 1 cubic mile

Oil reserves are ~1.7 trillion barrels (1.65E+12). This is roughly 47 times annual oil consumption. The reserves do not decline much because new oil is discovered, and extraction techniques improve. See the stats and graph here: https://www.worldometers.info/oil/ and Statistica (graph below).

1 barrel of oil (1 boe) produces 5,861 MJ

1.65E+12 boe * 5,861 MJ = 9.67E15 energy in oil reserves

So, 1 cubic mile has about 5.6 times more potential energy than the world's oil reserves.

Total world primary energy consumption is ~638 quads. World energy consumption is also quoted at 587 quads, which I assume means 51 quads of primary energy are lost in energy conversion. That seems low. Anyway, let's go with 638 quads.

1 quad = 1,055,055,852,620 MJ (1.06E12).

So, the deuterium in 1 cubic mile can power the world for 80.5 years, at present rates of primary energy consumption.

Cross-check:

World oil consumption was 35 billion boe per year in 2016 (worldometers) (3.54E10 boe). This produces ~2.08E+14 MJ. That is 31% of 638 quads. Various sources say that oil produces ~31% of the world's primary energy, down from 44% in 1971. So the numbers add up. No doubt these other sources use the same numbers I just did, but anyway, my arithmetic seems right.

Bonus points:

There are 332.5 million cubic miles of water on earth, according to the USGS. So that is enough deuterium to last 26.8 billion years, which is far longer than the sun will last (5 billion years). That is at present rates of consumption. If consumption increases by a factor of a million, mainly with energy production in outer space, fear not! There is far more deuterium on other planets and in the Oort cloud. As Arthur Clarke put it in 1963:

"The heavy hydrogen in the seas can drive all our machines, heat all our cities, for as far ahead as we can imagine. If, as is perfectly pos­sible, we are short of energy two generations from now, it will be through our own incompetence. We will be like Stone age men freezing to death on top of a coal bed."

- Profiles of the Future

Display More

Quote from JedRothwell

Ah, but is it right?

You can send me a messy spreadsheet if you like..

Energy comparison's have been done by quite a few.

Coal is more used than oil for thermal generation

Earthwater is about 0.03% deuterium by mass

so 3333 cubic meters. would yield I ton of deuterium assuming perfect extraction

Britannica "one ton of deuterium has the energy equivalent of approx. 29 billion tons of coal"

-one ton of water has the equivalent of 29 billion/3333 =?? tonnes of coal

human consumption of coal = 8 billion tones per. year and rising..

so 919 tons of water (approx 1 thousandth of a cube km).= energy equivalent of the human annual coal consumption

.. a few assumptions in there.

Cost comparison??no data on the cost of deuterium fusion technology.. ITER?? LENR??

also deuterium extraction is not free..

news. 2022...new tech can reduce the cost...good work from China

Room temperature , low energy temperature H2/D2 separation

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1450218/v1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiqrdXMjMGIAxUdxzgGHQc6BngQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw01I1f6wv-qHr1hSpxhdOYx

temperature

I'd be more interested in a device to replace the battery in my chainsaw, not to mention the firebox in my furnace, as I'm situated over an underground lake at least 80 feet deep that is likely replenished yearly. Hm, then I wouldn't need the chainsaw, and the trees could live in peace. Dream on Jed, dream on

That's interesting your mentioned of chainsaw because that was exactly what i saw on TV this morning.

In indonesia workers manufacturing wood boats but needing fresh wood they cutted still with an oil chainsaw.

So to summarize my daily very early thoughts we never fully will remove all the oil applications because as here it's so usefull, now we just have to focus on LENR technologies which have the potential to replace the main oil using which are the more polluting for the planet.

Now what are they, cars ? chemistry transformations ? planes ? boat ? heating houses maybe ? or electricity production ? JedRothwell do you have a chart in this way ? Thanks

Quote from GRMattson

I'd be more interested in a device to replace the battery in my chainsaw, not to mention the firebox in my furnace, as I'm situated over an underground lake at least 80 feet deep that is likely replenished yearly. Hm, then I wouldn't need the chainsaw, and the trees could live in peace. Dream on Jed, dream on

Now thank you for all, apparently the forum restarts after the summer time with deeper exchanges

Quote from JedRothwell

Right?

More or less..right.Jed

I wouldn't. quibble about. 12000 vs 13000.

Small quibble here

" Deuterium is one part in 6420 of water. hydrogen So that's 111.11 moles of hydrogen or deuterium .. 6240 6420..

0.01780 0.01735

Whether it's square miles (US). or square km( the rest). there's plenty. by the grace of the good Lord

provided we have the technology cheap and ready??

Perhaps Iwamura. et al. are relying on the 1:6420. fraction of deuterium

Maybe not.. if it's just hydrogen H1.. then deuterium is less relevant