What would be the result of a fully functioning nuclear fusion power station? What does it promise?
>>55588717
Depends if its net positive energy production or not.
If net positive energy then it means limitless clean energy forever, vastly improving society. Especially if they are to make the smaller transportable fusion reactors in a factory
>>55588729
Dont be a msart ass. Like I said a fusion power station. Why would they build one if they werent sure it would work. This is why they are making an experimental reactor.
>>55588717
>lockheed making a tiny fusion reactor
>if they succeed they will make standard oil look like baby
Hope it happens just to see the military industrial complex save the world
>>55588758
As much as it wastes, the MIC consistently has pushed human technology forward.
>>55588756
The implication if net energy production is a reality, is that we can have virtually limitless electricity, for virtually no waste in comparison to every other method of energy production.
Run water desalination facilities wherever we want, build cities wherever we want, cost for transportation of goods would be next to nothing for an electric fleet. We'd have a viable method of energy production for the moon, and other planets which would be a boon to colonization of the solar system.
Its a lynch pin for so many things they're too numerous to list.
>>55588717
>>55588796
Free energy is physically impossible
>>55588796
That many electric cars is impossible. We don't have the materials for that.
>>55588751
And what will a limitless energy mean for us? WIll it really be "limitless"?
It *would* be a fantastic thing. However, fusion reactors still need to dump waste heat, so if we use them to continue to grow our energy usage for too long, within a few hundred years we'll have global warming simply due to the heat of the reactors.
>>55588820
Good thing no one is talking about free energy.
>>55588824
We don't have enough lithium based batteries to store the energy you mean. Lithium won't be the primary electron sponge in our batteries forever, there are plenty of suitable replacements. Though lithium does have massive industry money behind it, and the powers that be like milking their cash cows.
The rest of an electric car is fairly simple. Electric motors are considerably less complex than internal combustion.
>>55588840
''heat'' from things doesn't contribute to global warming you dip. most excess heat would just be radiated off
>>55588840
This is just bullshit
>>55588878
>>55588865
>>55588840
>Still believing in global warming 2016
>>55588820
>>55588824
Smart asses everywhere huh?
Guy refers to the fact that fusion should use substances that are so plentiful in the nature/universe that there won't be a thing like oil price/coal price or, like nuclear power, difficult to obtain and handle fissile material.
And
>That many electric cars is impossible. We don't have the materials for that.
you're implying. there's no safe guess that we must rely on lithium or other rare earths for the batteries.
In a world where electricity price is only due to structure maintenance, you can instead SAFELY BET that a lot of research would be done to batteries, supercapacitors, distribution grids, etc.
Don't reason with actual technology which is, as a matter of fact, still moving the first steps as combustion cars are yet more convenient
>>55588865
>>55588878
>>55588887
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
>>55588914
1400 years to build a dyson sphere still doesn't refute my point that heat from things isn't the cause of global warming. I don't know why you linked to me.
>>55588914
>In 2450 years, we use as much as all hundred-billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy.
were gonna make it bros
>>55588946
> The merciless growth illustrated above means that in 1400 years from now, any source of energy we harness would have to outshine the sun.
>>55588887
There's nothing to "believe" in. Global warming is fact, not theory. Whether it's caused by humans is something else.
Colonization is the only hope for mankind not to go extinct from a multitude of factors. Whether that be climate change, war, famine, disease or an asteroid hitting the Earth. We MUST colonize/terraform Mars etc if we are to survive beyond the next 1000 years as a species. This will require fusion reactors. The only thing that will still require fossils fule after that is launching rockets into space (Unless they can harness laser launching or someone discovers anti-grav).
>>55589026
Too busy promoting diversity to fund your imperalistic space rape fantasies
>>55589026
>he hasnt heard of the Transcension Hypothesis
Step it up son.
>>55588717
>>55588758
>I want to believe
That said I could believe LM would make insane amounts of money if they figured out fusion, even if they couldn't patent it.
Just imagine what kind of crazy (and expensive) fusion powered combat aircraft they could build to replace the freshly outdated F-35
If fusion works it will probably be more cost effective to retrofit existing coal plants, replacing the boilers with reactors and reusing the steam turbine and generator infrastructure.
>>55588717
>>55588910
>In a world where electricity price is only due to structure maintenance
you're wildly underestimating the cost. it's still a reactor that has to be build and maintained. not a magic electricity box.
best thing we can hope for is the cost efficency of a nuclear power plant without any waste.
>>55588717
The result? Mankind's greatest invention AND scam.
Why?
Because of unlimited energy.
Yet the faggots who own the stuff will find excuses to squeeze our wallets dry for eternity.
Unlimited resources for a high cost. Think about it.
>>55589205
>fusion powered combat aircraft
TFW IRL Valkyries
>>55588865
Well, not to the kind of global warming that is usually talked about, but the atmosphere doesn't contain an infinite volume of air and you can overwhelm its ability to radiate heat away if you pump enough of it into it.
>>55589205
>That said I could believe LM would make insane amounts of money if they figured out fusion, even if they couldn't patent it.
They are going with a design that is entirely their own. Rest assured that LM will patent every little thing they can and will go as hard as possible to commercialism this shit.
>Just imagine what kind of crazy (and expensive) fusion powered combat aircraft they could build to replace the freshly outdated F-35
They are already planning/proposing shit around it.
The big sell is being able to power a laser with a fusion reactor on a plane.
>>55588717
>What would be the result of a fully functioning nuclear fusion power station?
Electrical power
>>55589227
This is how bad modern day /g/ is
>>55588796
What would happen to bitcoin?
>>55589205
You do know that it will take a long time for fusion reactors to ever fit on planes, right?
>>55588751
>limitless clean energy forever
Doesn't exist. It's a paradox because any energy source or method that seems to provide more will inevitably have a use that didn't exist before either.
>>55588840
>build a factory that needs to heat shit
>????????
>$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>55588717
Nearly limitless clean energy. However, if the cost of building fusion plants is about as much as nuclear power plants the adoption rate will be scary low.
>>55589205
In the near term fusion's gonna generate neutrons. Neutrons fuck shit up. Not only can they fuck you up, they can make you radioactive.
Now if we get aneutronic fusion, fusion where less than one percent of the reactions emit neutrons, you still need like a meter of shielding to stop the gamma rays, x-rays, and the few neutrons you still produce.
Shielding is heavy, heavy is the exact opposite of what we want aircraft to be.
>> using old coal plants
Because fusion generates neutrons and neutrons make shit radioactive, fusion plants will need stuff for dealing with radioactive stuff. This means a lot of new shit to build. Pic related are all the robots ITER has to use to get all of the radioactives out and rebuild the reactor.
Now one exciting possibility is not using a boiler at all, but harnessing fusion energy direcrtly to make electricity
>>55589467
I'm sure the Chinks and Ruskies will politely respect LM's patents on one of the most important and disruptive technology in history
>>55589467
Why shouldn't they profit off their own work? Are you some sort of backwards commie?
>>55589689
The problem isn't the profiting.
It is the constant patent extensions to keep everyone else out.
Demand equalizes with supply, like some other people have mentioned. It'd probably be a milestone in technological development, though.
>>55588717
electricity
Nuclear fusion is a meme energy supply
Until we can form realistic neutron shielding ( which we can't) it is a pipe dream
It would theoretically be easy to do nuclear fusion for power generation, but the neutrons destroy any shielding we put in place in minutes so we can only do testing for a few minutes
All these people who say "if we could only get positive net energy anime will become real" are deluded idiots that don't understand the true barrier
>>55589924
I wouldn't doubt if it's part of the great filter.
Did they ever get anywhere with this or is it still being constructed?
>>55590071
>commonly achieved evolutionary leaps
>one is past ``the great filter''
>yet?
Science is a religion.
>>55589026
Colonizing a second planet will DOUBLE the chance that an entire planet's worth of people will die horribly.
>>55589924
Nigga current nuclear powerplants deal with neutrons just fine.
The neutron shielding doesn't get destroyed in minutes. ITER's neutron shields are only expected to be replaced a couple times in it's multi decade long life time.
Plasma instabilities are a much bigger issue. Plasma instabilities cause containment to be lost fucking up some very expensive components.
>>55590120
It has been constructed, had its first plasma, and they are running experiments on it right now
>>55590214
The orders of magnitude of neutron production between fusion and fission are high. That anon is correct
>>55590128
Well the yet is a 'we haven't met one if there is one' thing.
Most likely not in our galaxy because it'd only take a hundred thousand years to colonise the entire galaxy. In the timeframe of billions of years in our galaxy (like 10 billion), that's nothing.
>>55590214
ITER's funding is dead though thanks to britcucks, unless they rearrange funding. Among the hundred billion other things they now need to redo because they practically undid 40 years of diplomacy
>>55590332
>ITER's funding is dead though thanks to britcucks
Perhaps Merkel shouldn't have destroyed Europe then. What a shame.
>>55589659
And make second rate ripoffs because they dont have the manufacturing or engineering resources to do it right.
>>55589689
Not at all.
I actually really like lockheed, they've made some of my favorite aircraft and kelly johnson was a genius.
Just stating that lockheed know how to profit off of anything they can, anyway they can. They'll bribe politicians with hookers and then blackmail them if thats what it takes to secure a contract. They pretty much dont give a fuck.
>>55590162
But if halves the chance of every human being wiped out by a single asteroid impact.
>>55590380
>Not at all.
I'm just used to summerfag responses as of late.
>>55590383
Who gives a shit? Saving people matters more than saving the human species.
>>55588717
Full Communism
>>55590480
>>55589477
He's probably right though. Many ISPs are like this, they aren't upgrading, and the only real cost is maintainence yet they charge out the ass.
>>55590500
Nuclear power is the most American energy source of them all, red kike
>>55589496
>it will take time to outfit a plane with spinning radioactive sticks
>>55588914
>All economic growth must similarly end
This is the truly scary part. The transition to an economy not focused on growth will be very rough, at best.
>>55590699
>The transition to an economy not focused on growth
Unicorn. Will not happen unless you watch your TNG disc set everyday.
>>55588887
You forgot your MAGA hat
>>55590930
You can't sustain growth infinitely, and the earth is going to hit it's population cap soon.
>>55591048
>overpopulation meme
It's been a topic for hundreds of years. More people means more productive which drives progress collectively. Curbing growth in less desirable areas like Africa is fine to an extent but that's bad too. If we for example go back to population globally to around Napoleon even you will come across some hard choices. Do we keep Einstein? Wright brothers? Salk? We can only pick one.
>>55591135
There is a finite amount of people the earth can support. That's not a meme.
Population control, however, is a meme. It's basically impossible without getting all the world powers on board, and nobody wants to be the ones to slow growth in their country.
It will happen one way or another though, most likely via famine, disease, or a massive war.
>>55591278
You're likely a statist and propagandized so it's to be expected. It's simply counter factual. The world's population has grown so has the standard of living and significantly. That's simply another fact. Why? Two hundred years ago Malthus wrote his book and said the same thing. Here we have all these hungry people in the world and if the population increases they'll all be starving all over the place. Population will outpace our production. This of course turned out to be completely incorrect. The average income in the world around two hundred years ago was about $180 per year. Today we seven times as many people. The average income per person now is about $9,000 to $10,000 per year in today's money. The population has gone up fifty times and the total production has gone up three hundred and fifty times. Paul Ehrlich wrote another overpopulation book in 68'. We had 3.5 billion total then and he predicted we would need population control or people in the USA would even be starving by the year 2000. The average income per person in 68' was around $3,000 and now it's $9,000 to $10,000. The population has doubled and the per capita income has tripled. Total production has multiplied six times. Ehrlich was born in 32' and he saw this trend in his own lifetime from 32' to 68'. If his theory had any truth to it people would've been richer in 32' than 68'.
You're looking at this from the wrong angle. You're wrong because it's not population on one side and production on the other side. You're asking if the producers are going to keep up with the population. This is more of a communist mentality. No, it's the people who are doing the production. The more people there are the more producers there are. Every mouth comes with a pair of hands and also a mind. More people more inventors and inventions are cumulative.
>>55588833
essentially. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4yWhA1mVxA
From the comments:
> How unlimited are we talking here? Like, how much would human energy consumption have to increase to produce a 1m sea level change in let's say, 100 years due to water being the primary fuel of our energy? I have the very simple belief that, if fuel availability is not considered a problem because of sheer abundance, then human consumption will simply scale up until it becomes one.
Answer:
> It's not actually water that is used for fusion, but deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen that makes up only 0.015% of sea water mass. At the current level of energy consumption, the amount of deuterium on earth would suffice for over a billion years.Also, just because that's usually a frequently asked question aswell: helium emission is insignificant aswell. Worldwide production of helium (25k tonnes a year) far outweights the tiny amount of helium produced in the fusion process by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
So: Even if human energy consumption increased by a factor of a million, we could still live from fusion for a million years.
>>55591765
Almost all of our economic growth has been derived from harnessing energy to do work. Ever since we discovered that you could use the water in a river to power a mill, it's been mechanization and automation. Just recently, in the past 200 years, our materials science has allowed us to experience rates of growth never before seen.
I'm not claiming that people and production aren't directly related. My statement is that it is only possible, ecologically, to support a finite number of people on the earth, and while we don't know that number, at some point it will become evident.
An ecosystem has something known as a "carrying capacity" for a given organism. It's hard to estimate for humans on earth, since we are drawing a lot of energy from non-renewable resources.
>>55588717
We could nuke the middle east with no consequences for our economy
>>55592064
Where do you plan to fight your perpetual "war" that drives the Military-Industrial Complex?
>>55592033
Oil was once useless and a nuisance. PEAK OIL! I'd be more skeptical of all the government (((science))) and scare mongering you consume.
>>55592064
Because it's as easy as throwing a few nukes some places to solve the middle east conflicts. Nuclear weapons cause great damage, but they are not magic wonder weapons. Also, just look at terror atm. That won't stop that way. It's more likely that it will further fuel those problems.
>>55592176
Easy would be chemical weapons. Nukes are a waste on non nuclear states.
>>55592176
I'd likely park some navy destroyers off Cuba's shores with GtA missiles and a surface gun for rafts/boats. Drop a chemical or multiple bio weapons in stages with low mortality rates till complete. Boom nice clean island property. Puerto Rico too.
>>55588717
It would represent a new target for muslim terrorist attacks.
>>55592173
You sound like a conspiracy theorist
>>55589026
Mars is dead. We'd have to biodome the surface or burrow way the fuck down to be able to survive there.
Not just a simple roof and walls, it would have to be able to withstand micro meteors, cosmic radiation, and stay 100% air tight. Mars has virtually no atmosphere, virtually no magnetosphere and comparatively no water.
>>55588840
Literally just put the reactors in orbit.
>>55593357
Manufacturing an atmosphere would be piddly. Manufacturing a magnetosphere would be the more difficult thing to overcome.
>>55593447
You still have an energy source as hot as the sun in Earth orbit (i.e. considerably closer than the sun is now.) And getting that power back to the surface is likely to reduce efficiency, which means more waste heat in the atmosphere.
The reactors-in-orbit idea might be a net benefit in terms of heat getting into the atmosphere, but no matter what precautions you take, eventually there will be limits to the amount of energy we can generate without frying ourselves.
>>55588865
Depends whether you believe in positive forcing or not.
>>55592248
To do what, exactly? Fusion reactors that lose containment are vastly less dangerous than fission.
Lots of energy while being clean and super efficient.
The only thing in the way is anti-nuclear energy hippy fags who don't understand how nuclear energy works and think the steam that comes from them is actually radiation.
All other alternate energy sources are dog shit meme garbage, especially stupid shit like solar and wind. Fusion energy is the future.
>>55588865
Actually you're wrong. A massively industrial planet would literally need planetary cooling as all the air/water on the planet would heat up from being a heatsink.
Of course, our species is a very long way away from warming our planet in that fashion but it is completely possible.
>>55588840
Forget space elevators, we need space heatsinks!
>>55588717
Once we reach deuterium+deuterium conditions we will basically have an ocean of fuel that won't produce any waste. Like, none. Just helium. The current reactions produce buttload of neutrons(it will only harm the reactor though) and require tritium, which is rare and radioactive. Oh, and the amount of power - a couple of grams will produce more heat than literal tons of coal. No cons, only it's super fucking complex.
>>55588717
A practical nuclear fusion plant promises no fallout when it eventually explodes. It will drive the price of electricity down a bit but since there's not really a competition in electricity I don't think that's going to happen. And of course the company building the plants will charge a huge amount so the price probably won't change that much.
To be honest it doesn't promise much over fission, maybe that's because it's still not a consideration in short term.
>>55590332
>calling us cucks for uncucking ourselves
wewest of lads
>>55588717
>>>/sci/
/g/ is for the discussion of graphics cards and 'waifus'
>>55588717
>What would be the result of a fully functioning nuclear fusion power station?
The only thing I know is that it's forever 20 years away. It will the endall of energy production however. You can keep your meme spheres and cold memes for later, fusion would definitely change society for the better.
>>55594103
Why are you so obsessed with the word cuck
>>55596963
With 4chan, it's not an obsession but a buzzword.
What happens to all that heat created by the unlimited energy the fusion reactors output?
>>55597034
Drop the classical fusion meme and adopt the cold fusion meme.
>>55597134
Cold fusion is still a way to generate heat.
>>55588985
>Whether it's caused by humans is something else.
So humans are not to blame for the excess carbon released to the atmosphere?
>not even a mention of farnsworth hirsch fusor type reactor
Literally the most feasible option that's being kept from popular knowledge so oil companies can make money while other dead-end technology avenues that will never work out stay in the "meh" tier level of the energy industry.
>>55588796
>FREE ENERGY
>Have to shut down the plant and replace the big science donut every ten minutes
>>55597258
oh yeah oil companies are out to stop everything that's not oil
giant energy businesses are in no way interested in cutting costs with cheaper energy sources and maintaining the same bills for the customers
>put a fusor on every rig, operating costs cut in half!
>>55597158
They are, now focus on the 20% from cars and ignore foreign industry, giant diesel engines, and coal. Buy more tesla.
>>55588717
More profits for utility companies.
>>55597258
Oh right I'm sure it's the oil companies.
Those billions and billions of dollars in fusion research are just all misguided, right?
>>55588717
>What would be the result of a fully functioning nuclear fusion power station?
>What does it promise?
electricity, both questions
>>55588840
Build a fusion reactor in an ocean, cool it down by evaporating salt water, and distill some of the evaporated steam. Export electricity, salt and fresh water.
