5 ms·
why work on minimizing the fusion reactor, when fusion reactors don't even work to begin with ("work" meaning "produce more energy than they consume for an inde
by viggity 8y ago
why work on minimizing the fusion reactor, when fusion reactors don't even work to begin with ("work" meaning "produce more energy than they consume for an indefinite amount of time").
Just nail fusion reactors and bam - energy too cheap to meter. We already have a distribution network, who cares if they're large?
- 420codebro 8y agoEnergy loss over transmission distance is a big issue. Need lots of little power gen stations. Not just a few large ones.
- hasperdi 8y agoImagine if we can put fusion reactors in thing that can move like planes and ships...
- rkwasny 8y agoWell, we don't have a single fusion reactor besides thermonuclear bomb.
- tropo 8y agoI think we might just barely be able to build a piston engine large enough to make use of that. It would have cylinders capable of swallowing container ships whole. You'd want at least 4 cylinders of course, maybe more. It'd be something like a trillion-liter engine. The emissions control device and the muffler would likewise be huge. The fuel injectors would need to toss the thermonuclear bombs clear of the piston and valves and cylinder walls, ensuring some distance between the fireball and anything that could be damaged. So yeah, there might be downsides, but I think this is actually a valid design for a fusion reactor. We really could do this.
- roryisok 8y ago> Just nail fusion reactors and bam - energy too cheap to meter. Fusion reactors like ITER are still hugely expensive to build, so I don't think it'll quite be "bam" or "too cheap to meter". Builders of tokamak reactors will be looking for good ROI, so energy will only be marginally cheaper than it is now, but with a much wider profit margin.