3 ms·
We do have fusion. It's very conveniently located a safe* distance away and blasts us with continuous energy. We just need to get better at collecting and stori
by ballenf 9y ago
We do have fusion. It's very conveniently located a safe* distance away and blasts us with continuous energy. We just need to get better at collecting and storing it. Instead of engaging in behavior that results in that energy cooking our planet.
* we have a few hundred million years or so to find a new one before it becomes markedly less safe.
- aalleavitch 9y agoHeh, I'm a total layman so this could be trivially impossible, but could we not somehow put a fusion reactor into orbit around earth such that its own gravity would contain itself just like a star? Or would that just not be feasible?
- m00g00 9y agoSure, we could trivially make our own star. All we'd need to do is move at least 100 Jupiters worth of mass into close proximity, and voila! Insta-star. That last part is not so trivial though... The difficulty us mere mortals have with sustained fusion is keeping the reaction from blowing itself apart (as in dissipation, not bomb). Gravity keeps things in check for free, but since gravity is so weak compared to atomic forces, you need an awful lot of it. Our current containment solutions using electromagnetic forces require a lot of energy to maintain and so far, more than produced from the resulting fusion reaction.
- aalleavitch 9y agoWhat if we were to combine both methods? Try to put an electromagnetic containment solution into space? Could we possibly find a medium between electromagnetic forces and gravitational forces that would allow us to make it hold together without having to actually have something as massive as a star?
- m_mueller 9y agojust be aware that a mini-nova from your orbital reactor very easily becomes a planet killer when the magnetic field fails.
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoWhy would we do that when it already exists?