How much would fusion power wreck the economy?
Discussion
Gary C said:
annodomini2 said:
bucksmanuk said:
We are years off fusion being ready
First of all, we have to get more energy out than energy in. We are at 0.67 after 40 years of research.
90, fusion was first achieved in 1932First of all, we have to get more energy out than energy in. We are at 0.67 after 40 years of research.
annodomini2 said:
Gary C said:
annodomini2 said:
bucksmanuk said:
We are years off fusion being ready
First of all, we have to get more energy out than energy in. We are at 0.67 after 40 years of research.
90, fusion was first achieved in 1932First of all, we have to get more energy out than energy in. We are at 0.67 after 40 years of research.
Ah, bombarding lithium. Couldn't see the link at first.
Edited by Gary C on Sunday 3rd April 17:56
Disasterous if your economy is based around exporting energy (Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc.) but really good if you are a large net importer like which uses energy for manufacturing (Germany, Japan etc.) You would probably see smelting industries move back to the country of ore deposits though to reduce the cost of transportation. The most important countries economically would become those with important resources like Australia, Brazil etc.
Overall the quality of living would improve substantially because energy is a bottleneck in our economy. If you can lower the cost of energy suddenly you can do all sorts of really interesting projects like in Australia, where I live, fresh water could be pumped from the mouth of major river systems to the outback so huge tracts of land could be irrigated. Ditto in the US water could be taken west from the Mississippi to the Colorado.
Overall the quality of living would improve substantially because energy is a bottleneck in our economy. If you can lower the cost of energy suddenly you can do all sorts of really interesting projects like in Australia, where I live, fresh water could be pumped from the mouth of major river systems to the outback so huge tracts of land could be irrigated. Ditto in the US water could be taken west from the Mississippi to the Colorado.
speedy_thrills said:
Disasterous if your economy is based around exporting energy (Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc.) but really good if you are a large net importer like which uses energy for manufacturing (Germany, Japan etc.) You would probably see smelting industries move back to the country of ore deposits though to reduce the cost of transportation. The most important countries economically would become those with important resources like Australia, Brazil etc.
Overall the quality of living would improve substantially because energy is a bottleneck in our economy. If you can lower the cost of energy suddenly you can do all sorts of really interesting projects like in Australia, where I live, fresh water could be pumped from the mouth of major river systems to the outback so huge tracts of land could be irrigated. Ditto in the US water could be taken west from the Mississippi to the Colorado.
You'll be getting hatemail, espousing ideas like cheap energy. The greens really don't like that. Do any of Oz's river systems have much spare volume left? The greens will probably hate that too. Overall the quality of living would improve substantially because energy is a bottleneck in our economy. If you can lower the cost of energy suddenly you can do all sorts of really interesting projects like in Australia, where I live, fresh water could be pumped from the mouth of major river systems to the outback so huge tracts of land could be irrigated. Ditto in the US water could be taken west from the Mississippi to the Colorado.
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
dundarach said:
It'd be great for Goole if we get it in East Yorkshire 
It's actually quite safe, so your hopes of goole being improved by a giant fusion explosion are pretty remote. Nah, any wishes to 'improve' Goole personally would involve a digger, high tide and the latest flood predictions...
hidetheelephants said:
speedy_thrills said:
Disasterous if your economy is based around exporting energy (Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc.) but really good if you are a large net importer like which uses energy for manufacturing (Germany, Japan etc.) You would probably see smelting industries move back to the country of ore deposits though to reduce the cost of transportation. The most important countries economically would become those with important resources like Australia, Brazil etc.
Overall the quality of living would improve substantially because energy is a bottleneck in our economy. If you can lower the cost of energy suddenly you can do all sorts of really interesting projects like in Australia, where I live, fresh water could be pumped from the mouth of major river systems to the outback so huge tracts of land could be irrigated. Ditto in the US water could be taken west from the Mississippi to the Colorado.
You'll be getting hatemail, espousing ideas like cheap energy. The greens really don't like that. Do any of Oz's river systems have much spare volume left? The greens will probably hate that too. Overall the quality of living would improve substantially because energy is a bottleneck in our economy. If you can lower the cost of energy suddenly you can do all sorts of really interesting projects like in Australia, where I live, fresh water could be pumped from the mouth of major river systems to the outback so huge tracts of land could be irrigated. Ditto in the US water could be taken west from the Mississippi to the Colorado.
Ash_ said:
This is something I've thought about a few times, in that why can't (someone with a ton of money for example) built an aggregation plant for parts of Africa for example, much like the idea for Australia. But that then got me thinking (and I'm definitely no Greeny), but would turning desert lands in to useful farming land etc also have a detrimental effect on the wider environment?
It would certainly cause massive environmental changes, what those could be would need very careful research and even then there would be very large error bands in predicting; regreening could have cooling effects due to water vapour forming cloud but the costs are massive if it's on a large scale and if river systems are already under stress there won't be water available, meaning desalination and pumping from the sea. If there's really cheap energy these things become possible if not necessarily advisable.hidetheelephants said:
Ash_ said:
This is something I've thought about a few times, in that why can't (someone with a ton of money for example) built an aggregation plant for parts of Africa for example, much like the idea for Australia. But that then got me thinking (and I'm definitely no Greeny), but would turning desert lands in to useful farming land etc also have a detrimental effect on the wider environment?
It would certainly cause massive environmental changes, what those could be would need very careful research and even then there would be very large error bands in predicting; regreening could have cooling effects due to water vapour forming cloud but the costs are massive if it's on a large scale and if river systems are already under stress there won't be water available, meaning desalination and pumping from the sea. If there's really cheap energy these things become possible if not necessarily advisable.Ash_ said:
This is something I've thought about a few times, in that why can't (someone with a ton of money for example) built an aggregation plant for parts of Africa for example, much like the idea for Australia. But that then got me thinking (and I'm definitely no Greeny), but would turning desert lands in to useful farming land etc also have a detrimental effect on the wider environment?
Because people with AKs will turn up, claim it is theirs and ruin the whole project. Ash_ said:
This is something I've thought about a few times, in that why can't (someone with a ton of money for example) built an aggregation plant for parts of Africa for example, much like the idea for Australia. But that then got me thinking (and I'm definitely no Greeny), but would turning desert lands in to useful farming land etc also have a detrimental effect on the wider environment?
North Africa, the Saharah, greens itself in 20,000 year cycles when earths tilt shifts. That's how all those ancient civilisations lived there.Quote a lot of the worlds most productive farm land has been engineered into existence but progressively the low hanging fruit have been picked. What remains are much larger or lower yielding projects. Frankly with food prices so low it's hardly worthwhile.
annodomini2 said:
I'm not an expert, but as far as I understand extra clouds trap more heat and deserts reflect a lot of sunlight back into space so it may make the situation worse.
The net effect is supposed to be cooling, I misremembered.hidetheelephants said:
annodomini2 said:
I'm not an expert, but as far as I understand extra clouds trap more heat and deserts reflect a lot of sunlight back into space so it may make the situation worse.
The net effect is supposed to be cooling, I misremembered.bucksmanuk said:
It’ll be some bloke in a shed who cracks it…
Not sure about it being quite as small as a shed but there are a few smaller outfits doing interesting stuff, e.g. First Light Fusion who are testing a very different approach which uses a rail gunhttps://youtu.be/8Q5aZl9QMXo?t=238
Edited by budgie smuggler on Thursday 12th May 10:39
hidetheelephants said:
The net effect is supposed to be cooling, I misremembered.
FDRs New Deal program in the 30s and 40s created a series of Berms and Swales in the desert outside Tucson, Arizona as a civilian Civilian Conservation Corps. project. Still there today and doing a remarkable job of greening the desert. Well worth a visit if you are ever there (take some hiking boots and a couple of bottles of water!)Edit to add: https://youtu.be/1I-Et4FnEvA
Edited by speedy_thrills on Friday 13th May 18:22
speedy_thrills said:
hidetheelephants said:
The net effect is supposed to be cooling, I misremembered.
FDRs New Deal program in the 30s and 40s created a series of Berms and Swales in the desert outside Tucson, Arizona as a civilian Civilian Conservation Corps. project. Still there today and doing a remarkable job of greening the desert. Well worth a visit if you are ever there (take some hiking boots and a couple of bottles of water!)Edit to add: https://youtu.be/1I-Et4FnEvA
Edited by speedy_thrills on Friday 13th May 18:22
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff