Is it a possible that efficient, controllable fusion for the purposes of power on a small scale (less than anything around the size of a star) is simply not a scientific possibility? Or is there evidence that it can be done but we just can't find the means?
We should skip the fusion meme and start pursuing antimatter IMO.
>>8169586
Antimatter isn't a "real" fuel source; it's more like a battery. Only negligible amounts occur in nature, enough to actually do anything with would have to be produced artificially, which consumes more power than you'd get out of the antimatter.
Why not pursue miniature fission? Could a couple milligram size ball of Pu-239 perhaps be compressed enough to go critical with lasers?
Boom. The future is miniaturized internal nuclear detonation engines.
>>8169837
Because the lasers are fucking expensive (in terms of energy).
In my hopeful future, humanity decides that they want to stop fucking themselves, and we get a breeder reactor, whether uranium-plutonium or thorium-uranium, and we use that electricity to make gasoline from H2 from splitting water and CO2 pulled out of the atmosphere or oceans. So, in all likelihood, in the proper solution, your car is still going to be gasoline - sustainable renewable CO2 neutral gasoline, but gasoline nonetheless.
>>8169576
We know it can be done, we have built fusion bombs after all. Making them practical on the other hand is a little harder.
>>8170796
>gasoline
What a total shit fuel to manufacture. Ever heard of this thing called methane. 100x easier to make than gasoline, 40x easier to store than hydrogen and your car can be retrofitted to burn it for a couple thousand dollars.
>>8170834
What's the energy density in terms of mass and volume? How's that work for the application of a car, and especially trucking, and especially airplanes? I'm guessing shittier than gasoline.
>>8170836
It's more energy dense, we just don't have engines that can handle the wear and tear.
Ceramic engines would make this real. We would basically have as much as we could ever use too
>>8170874
Well, I think global warming and ocean acidification is a real concern, and therefore we should not "dig up" methane and burn it. Maybe we could manufacture methane from H2 from water and CO2 from the air if it happens to work out better than gasoline and kerosene.
>>8170878
Shit. I posted to /b/ just a moment, and it drop the trip. Sorry.
>>8170874
>> ceramic engines
Have proven to be an expensive boondoggle so far
>>8169837
1) lasers require a lot of power, reducing efficiency
2) if plutonium is needed to make it work, it leads to a nuclear proliferation risk. there's no such thing as "non-weapons-grade" plutonium.
>>8169586
We should skip the antimatter meme and pursue dark energy imo
>>8170878
We could mine it from neptune.
>>8171685
There's no such thing as "non-weapons-grade" anything with high energy density. If small scale fusion becomes possible, bloody water becomes proliferation risk. Gasoline can be used easily as explosive. Sunlight can be used as a weapon. There's no way around physics. Whatever that can be used for fuel can be used to blow shit up. When the fuels become more energy-efficient (J/kg) than the ones we use today, they be used make bigger explosions than the ones we get from today's common fuels. And the biggest non-nuclear bombs are pretty much gasoline and air.
>>8171685
>2) if plutonium is needed to make it work, it leads to a nuclear proliferation risk. there's no such thing as "non-weapons-grade" plutonium.
Uhh, what? What about Plutonium 238 for space probes, and it's totally not fissile. How is that "weapons grade" anything?
>>8172104
The point is, reactor-grade uranium cannot be used to make a nuclear bomb. Sure, there are ways to weaponize reactors, like using them to power giant lasers or something, but you can't get an actual nuclear explosion without highly enriched uranium. But plutonium is automatically of very high purity without needing enrichment, so any plutonium you find is suitable for making bombs.
>>8173155
Pu-238 is produced in only very small quantities by either normal or breeder reactors, while breeder reactors produce large quantities of Pu-239. So no "enrichment" is needed. And, the original comment I was replying to was about "miniature fission" using Pu-239. Obviously, since Pu-238 is non-fissile, you wouldn't be able to use it for "miniature fission".
