What will happen after Nuclear Fusion?

[Mad 'At]

True that Cthulhu. And it should be possible to achieve teleportation with that technology, thus making the stars a more viable target once we have fusion. Though we would probably have to travel to the stars first place to place out some receiver device.

The theory behind it is pretty much what Spiney said, but you also have to isolate the two particles completely from the outside world IIRC. You could also build computers with them, super computers where each "cell" isn't either 0 or 1 but is instead 0 and 1 in two ways at the same time. It is very strange at least. Someone smart in physics once said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics.

@Sanai: True, you can't really prove it, but in an infinite universe you can't really prove anything. But as I said we do apply the theories to the real world and it works, that must mean something.

 

[Fodderboy]

The two particles share information due to 'quantum entanglement'. IIRC, the 'spin' of the two particles is related. Not only that, but once the particles are properly entangled, you can poke one and read the other. The reaction time between the two particles seems to be faster than light.

Another fun one I had heard about was how 'relative' the speed of light was. There was a team (French, I believe) who zapped a laser into some controlled environment (plasma or a matter condensate?) and were able to slow it down measureably.

The poor cat half dead half alive is best described here.

Back to the OP.

One thing I think is really silly about the way we harness energy from fossil fuels through to nuclear fission is that we use the energy created to boil up some water to drive a turbine. Sure, steam is a relatively simple technology, but surely the losses are worth looking into.

Fusion will be the same. The dramatic amount of head generated will be used to warm up water.

If you can get enough heat dissipated, you could use the Seebeck effect to generate DC electricity direcly
from the heated elements, instead of using the intermediate procedure of steam generation. Once again the problem is harvesting the heat and cooling down what needs to cool down.

Once fusion really gets under control though, I think there will no longer be shortages of particular elements. For example, there currently isn't enough Lithium in Tibet and South America for everyone to drive an electric car. It can be produced as a waste product.

As can gold.

Helium was once being stockpiled in the US as a strategic resource. That stockpile is currently being offloaded because someone decided that it'd be a good idea. It'd be nice to have enough to keep superconductors and what not cool, wouldn't it? Currently Helium is extracted from natural gas - obviously a limited lifetime endeavour. Helium is the primary waste product of Hydrogen fusion. There will no longer be a limited supply of Helium. I don't know if there will be some He3 accidentally produced as well. I hope so, as there are currently plans in place to strip mine the surface of the moon for it (if only I was joking).

All of the rare earth elements that are used in catalysts will be at our fingertips too.

I think the spin-off technologies will be interesting. Especially if the generators can become miniaturized. Get a generator to fit within a cubic meter and you can put it in a car/truck.

The cheaper energy can also be used for water purification. With the vast majority of the the worlds population relying on shrinking glaciers for their fresh water supply, securing enough water for drinking and agriculture will become the primary focus of most governments over the next couple of decades, and likely the cause of a couple of wars too. It already has been in the past:
-Euphrates and Tigris Rivers among Turkey, Syria, and Iraq
-Jordan River conflict among Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestine territories
-Nile River-related conflicts among Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan
-Aral Sea conflict among Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan

There will also be developments in plasma containment technology. Where those will lead I have no idea.

Toxic waste of all flavours will become fuel for the generators.


Will there be a new age of enlightenment once fusion is viable? I don't think so. There will always be the haves and the have-nots. What we will have is more options. What we do with those options depends on the character of us and our children.

 

[Sanai]

The problem is producing enough fusion off of our oil based tech platform for it to become self sufficient- It would probably take at least a hundred years (assuming we get fusion right now) before we have enough fusion not to need oil. I personally don't think our supply of reasonably attainable oil will remain sufficient for the worlds needs for that long. Its a bit hard to build fusion reactors when everyone is starting to starve and your neighbours start invading you for your resources.

 

[Chaos_Born]

Yeah bit oil isn't our only fuel option, we still have good 'ol fashioned fission to keep us powered until something (I assume) less dangerous comes along.

That's a good point, would the hugely hot and immensely high pressure containers be a potential danger. Perhaps not as long term dangerous as a nuclear meltdown in a power plant, but I can foresee some pretty big explosions going on. Perhaps fusion won't even properly take off because there is some catastrophic disaster on a par with Chernobyl and the human rights guys ban it or something. Feasible?

 

[Sanai]

I think it is more feasible that it all gets mired down in people just faffing about and wasting time and money dithering about and building more mcdonalds and bickering about economics until something human race wrecking happens.

 

[Fodderboy]

Actually, the European demonstration plant ITER has already produced 500MW for 500 seconds +.

At least one commercially viable prototype plant is slated for operation by 2033.

 

[Sanai]

Yes, but europe's economy is also falling apart at the seams .

 

[Monkey's_Uncle]

Yes, but europe's economy is also falling apart at the seams .

Not entirely, Germany don't seem to be doing too bad considering they've already had to bail everybody else out. But, the rest of us are doing pretty poorly I must say.

If only America didn't keep bringing the rest of the world down with them when they have economic crashes, ahh well.

 

[Sanai]

If only America didn't keep bringing the rest of the world down with them when they have economic crashes, ahh well.

Actually you can blame France for that, they are the ones who seperated intrinsic value from money and introduced the concept of shares which lead to the modern stock market.

 

[Count Darvaleth]

Once we find a material for the container (which would circumvent any pressure/temperature problems, it's the only issue facing scientists for fusion right now) I feel that there would not be a great shortage of people willing to pay for (nearly) infinite energy.

Concerning the (off-topic...!) economy, I find it fascinating that Germany manages to do well given the modern climate and its 20th century history. When the British Empire was at its height (holding a glorious 25% of the entire planet), and social Darwinism was prevalent, the British considered the Germans the only other "race" to be close/equal to themselves. I have always wondered what might have been if Germany didn't two spawn war-mongers and Britain and Germany had entered into an alliance; the entire world may even have been unified.

 

[spineyrequiem]

Oh, we should have entered into an alliance with them; according to one of my history teachers, the only reason we went to war against them in the first world war was because if we hadn't joined up with France and Russia they would have done horrible degrading things to our empire in the event of them winning, whereas if Germany won, well, who cares? If we'd allied with Germany, the chances are that the initial German thrust into France might have got further with us covering their northern flank, allowing them to quickly take Paris and then quick-turn their troops to intercept the slowly-mobilising Russian army (although they would have been surprised by the speed with which Russia managed it, as happened IRL). Russia would then have been overtaken by the Communists, Germany and France would sort out the peace treaty like they had been doing for the last century, we'd be back in time for Christmas, the German economy wouldn't have collapsed in the 1930s, Hitler wouldn't have had so many war stories to tell to the very small group of shaven-headed fascists in his local pub and would have been laughed at on the street, Mein Kampf would be thrown out by the publishers and we would have all had cake. It would have been brilliant.

Probably.

Anyway, back on topic, isn't part of the problem with fission at the moment that it's just horrifically difficult to control?

 

[Harland]

Stand back, and behold the awesome knowledge of a master of GCSE PHYSICS (100%, bitches)
anyway.
1. Fusion does not need Tritium. The equation for Fusion is:
H[X] + H[Y] + heat -> He[4] + oodles of energy
where X + Y = 4. So two H[2] would work, or an H[1] and an H[3].
2. Another thing of note is the +heat. We have yet to find technology (or proof that it is possible) to perform Fusion in an environment where it isn't extremely hot, a.k.a. Cold Fusion. Although some of the energy produced by the Fusion can be siphoned off to keep it running, it still requires a tremondous amoutn of energy to start it up, a requirement that at the moment is at least partially unfeasable for several reasons (for example, the question of a containing material).
3. Nothing I have ever learned or read about Relativity suggests that Wormholes are impossible. A wormhole is possible where there is a 'fold' in the 'fabric' of reality, so in fact the information does not travel too great a 'distance', as in its own frame of reference it is travelling not very far at all.
I wish I could explain it better, but perhaps I will have another go tomorrow.
And the quotationg marks are necessary.

 

[Sanai]

Nothing I have ever learned or read about Relativity suggests that Wormholes are impossible. A wormhole is possible where there is a 'fold' in the 'fabric' of reality, so in fact the information does not travel too great a 'distance', as in its own frame of reference it is travelling not very far at all.

Actually isn't relativity where the scientific idea of wormholes came from in the first place?

 

[Tawg]

True, you can't really prove it, but in an infinite universe you can't really prove anything. But as I said we do apply the theories to the real world and it works, that must mean something.

It only means we haven't found the proof to disprove it yet, it doesn't make it immutable law. :ghost: Although honestly everything in life comes down to belief, whether you want it to or not, since as you say nothing can truly be proven, it all ends up being taken on your faith. Most people just accept the general notion of reality and the rules we have been tought exist in that frame.

I think it is more feasible that it all gets mired down in people just faffing about and wasting time and money dithering about and building more mcdonalds and bickering about economics until something human race wrecking happens.

I agree with Sanai, I don't see humans banding together, or overcoming their short sighted, greedy nature any time soon.

Once we find a material for the container (which would circumvent any pressure/temperature problems, it's the only issue facing scientists for fusion right now) I feel that there would not be a great shortage of people willing to pay for (nearly) infinite energy.

People also usually are willing to pay into things because they expect to get much more out of it; and if anyone managed to get infinite energy, agianst the world who did not have such a resorce, how would anyone hope to oust them? A little crazy, but they could literally take over the world, and given the chance, do you not thing someone would try?

 

[Harland]

Actually isn't relativity where the scientific idea of wormholes came from in the first place?

Quite possibly, I was just saying that the idea of wormholes perfectly adheres to relativity.

It only means we haven't found the proof to disprove it yet, it doesn't make it immutable law. Although honestly everything in life comes down to belief, whether you want it to or not, since as you say nothing can truly be proven, it all ends up being taken on your faith. Most people just accept the general notion of reality and the rules we have been tought exist in that frame.