4 ms·

Fusion is big. Fusion could be economically/societally dangerous. If fusion is developed very incrementally no big deal. If a real breakthrough occurs making

Fusion is big. Fusion could be economically/societally dangerous. If fusion is developed very incrementally no big deal. If a real breakthrough occurs making fusion cheap and easy, a huge chunk of economic activity could be made redundant overnight. Huge social unrest, starting in the middle east and U.S. to a lesser degree is possible as incomes vanish. Hopefully will replace fossil fuels incrementally, just as the transistor replaced the vacuum tube incrementally, etc. A huge breakthrough in affordability and practicality could be dangerous though. By publishing their results to the broad masses it will be hard for concerned governments to discredit them.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> Fusion could be economically/societally dangerous. Fusion is the opposite of that. Cheap energy is the greatest driver of economic growth and social prosperity the world has ever known. The fact that fossil fuels are becoming increasingly expensive and at the same time destroying the global climate is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster. Anything legitimately capable of reducing energy costs while fighting climate change is rightly hailed as an economic and social miracle.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  Yes. Widespread deployment of nearly-free power would save a lot of households a lot of dollars on heating, cooling, and electric costs. It would save web hosting companies a lot of money. After a few years of additional electric-car development, it'd save them fuel costs too. It would go a long way to solving the California drought (desalinization becomes much more attractive). All that money could be spent on something else that's actually meaningful instead of on oil-extraction infrastructure and the fortunes and lifestyles of Saudi Arabian oil princes.
  - zachrose 12y ago
    It's crazy to think through the ramifications of fusion power. A Sahara irrigated with desalinated water. Mining trash to get the metals out. Sequestering CO2. Turning the entire globe into a climate-controlled mall.
    - p1mrx 12y ago
      I would bet on desalination becoming practical using solar power, before fusion is cheap enough to compete. The day/night cycle isn't a problem for desalination because fresh water is easy to store, and the places that most need water tend not to be cloudy. I think the killer app for fusion is large vehicles: cargo ships, spacecraft, helicopter islands, etc.
    - onnoonno 12y ago
      Everyone is content to happy, well-fed, in one big climate-controlled mall. Awesome utopia.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      One problem to watch out for if you have effectively unlimited power, is that global warming would no longer be an indirect effect of stuff like CO2, but just a direct result of not caring about efficiency any more.
      - zachrose 12y ago
        Can't you just crank up the AC and blast the heat into space somehow?
  - onnoonno 12y ago
    The question would then be - what is really meaningful?
rpedela 12y ago
Distribution always take time. Even if LPP [1], achieves what they are attempting which would be a complete game changer, it would take time to distribute the fusion power plants. Or one of the other projects succeeds, same thing. In addition, the first application of fusion will be for buildings. Most base power comes from coal and natural gas not oil. So I think the Middle East will be okay for awhile. The sort of power plant LPP is developing could theoretically be used for large vehicles (trains, large planes, large ships), but you still need oil for cars, trucks, and plastic. Even then, it will take many years for the vehicle fleet to switch over to fusion or any other non-oil power source. I am not worried. 1. http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/ http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Their arguments against the Big Bang make for interesting reading - http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/ http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/cosmic-connection/plas...
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Interesting indeed, but a bit out of date. There's no mention of gravitational lensing by dark matter, for example. I just skipped around and didn't read the whole thing. What is their explanation for inflation+redshift, and what is their motivation for posting this?
maratd 12y ago
Can someone name a single time something like this has happened?
ams6110 12y ago
Unless your fusion technology is able to work directly in transport vehicles there will still be a need for petroleum based fuels for a good while. EV battery technology isn't there yet for people who need to use cars for more than commuting and running a few errands around town and isn't likely to ever be viable for uses such as long haul trucking, rail, sea, and air transport. Even if you completely replaced all electical generation with fusion sources (something that would take decades even if fusion were a viable replacement today), we'd still need a lot of petroleum.
- aptwebapps 12y ago
  I'm not sure fusion tech == free energy, but with cheap enough energy you could synthesize petroleum-type fuels pretty cheaply. This would be a good stop-gap until EV battery tech caught up, assuming fusion tech was mature tomorrow. As it stands, though, by the time we are likely to have really cheap power from fusion EV tech will be pretty good.
sytelus 12y ago
If human kind ever developed virtually unlimited source of energy, ability to store it and channel it in to desired work on demand then there will be no poverty, no scarcity of virtually anything and there would be no concept of money itself anymore. With unlimited energy you can move mountains, convert Sahara in to green farmland, build giant spaceships of the size of cities, colonize pretty much all planets and so on. There would no shortage of material because you can mine entire solar system and even with current technologies you can pretty much automate making everything. That means there will be no employment because most people would not need to work to meet their basic needs. People would work on things if they felt like so. There won't be shortage of fuel and transportation because material become ultra cheap and making copies of vehicles would be done by automated factories. Robots would run almost entire operations, they themselves can be mass produced like soap because building them is cheaper and they would have lot of energy available to themselves to virtually do anything. There won't be wars on tiny land disputes because you can virtually fly anywhere and settle yourself with most modern amnesties in your giant mention built mostly by robots anywhere you like, including in the Antartica or in depth of seas or middle of Neveda. I know you are already raising your eyebrows over this because one can argue that we can also easily vaporize our own planet and robots can take over the world. Yes, sure. My theory is that there is certain kind of maturity required for species before it can attain "unlimited energy" prize from the nature. We have became more and more civilized over the centuries as we have gotten more and more power starting from rocks to swords to guns to basic atomic energy. We now have recognition for sovereign countries and aggressors gets punished by mutual boycotts. There will be no more Chengiz Khan or Alekzanders - they are all simply artifacts of our history where we consider their acts as unnecessarily barbaric. So there will be a day when human kind would be culturally ready and I think that day will align with invention of unlimited energy source - may even just direct conversion of mass to energy (fusion is really not that efficient).
- rpedela 12y ago
  I think you are conflating technical maturity with societal maturity. The Romans were technically the most advanced in their time and also equally or more barbaric than their less advanced neighbors. I hope some of what you say happens, and I do think if we can make all resources abundant and accessible to all then war and conquest will no longer be part of human culture since lack of resources is the root cause of those activities. However I also think it is not so simple and one super-volcano eruption or one asteroid can completely reset the clock.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> Fusion could be economically/societally dangerous. Fusion is the opposite of that. Cheap energy is the greatest driver of economic growth and social prosperity the world has ever known. The fact that fossil fuels are becoming increasingly expensive and at the same time destroying the global climate is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster. Anything legitimately capable of reducing energy costs while fighting climate change is rightly hailed as an economic and social miracle.

fennecfoxen 12y ago
Yes. Widespread deployment of nearly-free power would save a lot of households a lot of dollars on heating, cooling, and electric costs. It would save web hosting companies a lot of money. After a few years of additional electric-car development, it'd save them fuel costs too. It would go a long way to solving the California drought (desalinization becomes much more attractive). All that money could be spent on something else that's actually meaningful instead of on oil-extraction infrastructure and the fortunes and lifestyles of Saudi Arabian oil princes.
- zachrose 12y ago
  It's crazy to think through the ramifications of fusion power. A Sahara irrigated with desalinated water. Mining trash to get the metals out. Sequestering CO2. Turning the entire globe into a climate-controlled mall.
  - p1mrx 12y ago
    I would bet on desalination becoming practical using solar power, before fusion is cheap enough to compete. The day/night cycle isn't a problem for desalination because fresh water is easy to store, and the places that most need water tend not to be cloudy. I think the killer app for fusion is large vehicles: cargo ships, spacecraft, helicopter islands, etc.
  - onnoonno 12y ago
    Everyone is content to happy, well-fed, in one big climate-controlled mall. Awesome utopia.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    One problem to watch out for if you have effectively unlimited power, is that global warming would no longer be an indirect effect of stuff like CO2, but just a direct result of not caring about efficiency any more.
    - zachrose 12y ago
      Can't you just crank up the AC and blast the heat into space somehow?
- onnoonno 12y ago
  The question would then be - what is really meaningful?

rpedela 12y ago

Distribution always take time. Even if LPP [1], achieves what they are attempting which would be a complete game changer, it would take time to distribute the fusion power plants. Or one of the other projects succeeds, same thing. In addition, the first application of fusion will be for buildings. Most base power comes from coal and natural gas not oil. So I think the Middle East will be okay for awhile. The sort of power plant LPP is developing could theoretically be used for large vehicles (trains, large planes, large ships), but you still need oil for cars, trucks, and plastic. Even then, it will take many years for the vehicle fleet to switch over to fusion or any other non-oil power source. I am not worried. 1. http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/ http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

lotsofmangos 12y ago
Their arguments against the Big Bang make for interesting reading - http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/ http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/cosmic-connection/plas...
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Interesting indeed, but a bit out of date. There's no mention of gravitational lensing by dark matter, for example. I just skipped around and didn't read the whole thing. What is their explanation for inflation+redshift, and what is their motivation for posting this?

maratd 12y ago

Can someone name a single time something like this has happened?

ams6110 12y ago

Unless your fusion technology is able to work directly in transport vehicles there will still be a need for petroleum based fuels for a good while. EV battery technology isn't there yet for people who need to use cars for more than commuting and running a few errands around town and isn't likely to ever be viable for uses such as long haul trucking, rail, sea, and air transport. Even if you completely replaced all electical generation with fusion sources (something that would take decades even if fusion were a viable replacement today), we'd still need a lot of petroleum.

aptwebapps 12y ago
I'm not sure fusion tech == free energy, but with cheap enough energy you could synthesize petroleum-type fuels pretty cheaply. This would be a good stop-gap until EV battery tech caught up, assuming fusion tech was mature tomorrow. As it stands, though, by the time we are likely to have really cheap power from fusion EV tech will be pretty good.

sytelus 12y ago

If human kind ever developed virtually unlimited source of energy, ability to store it and channel it in to desired work on demand then there will be no poverty, no scarcity of virtually anything and there would be no concept of money itself anymore. With unlimited energy you can move mountains, convert Sahara in to green farmland, build giant spaceships of the size of cities, colonize pretty much all planets and so on. There would no shortage of material because you can mine entire solar system and even with current technologies you can pretty much automate making everything. That means there will be no employment because most people would not need to work to meet their basic needs. People would work on things if they felt like so. There won't be shortage of fuel and transportation because material become ultra cheap and making copies of vehicles would be done by automated factories. Robots would run almost entire operations, they themselves can be mass produced like soap because building them is cheaper and they would have lot of energy available to themselves to virtually do anything. There won't be wars on tiny land disputes because you can virtually fly anywhere and settle yourself with most modern amnesties in your giant mention built mostly by robots anywhere you like, including in the Antartica or in depth of seas or middle of Neveda. I know you are already raising your eyebrows over this because one can argue that we can also easily vaporize our own planet and robots can take over the world. Yes, sure. My theory is that there is certain kind of maturity required for species before it can attain "unlimited energy" prize from the nature. We have became more and more civilized over the centuries as we have gotten more and more power starting from rocks to swords to guns to basic atomic energy. We now have recognition for sovereign countries and aggressors gets punished by mutual boycotts. There will be no more Chengiz Khan or Alekzanders - they are all simply artifacts of our history where we consider their acts as unnecessarily barbaric. So there will be a day when human kind would be culturally ready and I think that day will align with invention of unlimited energy source - may even just direct conversion of mass to energy (fusion is really not that efficient).

rpedela 12y ago
I think you are conflating technical maturity with societal maturity. The Romans were technically the most advanced in their time and also equally or more barbaric than their less advanced neighbors. I hope some of what you say happens, and I do think if we can make all resources abundant and accessible to all then war and conquest will no longer be part of human culture since lack of resources is the root cause of those activities. However I also think it is not so simple and one super-volcano eruption or one asteroid can completely reset the clock.