Colonizing Antarctica with fusion power.

The Focus Fusion Society › Forums › Focus Fusion Cafe › Colonizing Antarctica with fusion power.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Posts
  • August 4, 2011 at 7:25 pm #1203
    MTd2
    Participant

    The idea is quite simple. Drill ice by melting it around pre fabricated structures. Given that ice moves slowly, it would cause stress on the structure, so it would be nice to build them around mountains.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transantarctic_Mountains

    August 4, 2011 at 7:31 pm #10408
    Tulse
    Participant

    Why bother? What makes Antarctica an attractive colony location? I would think there are far less remote, more hospitable parts of the world that could be made habitable with cheap energy (e.g., large parts of the US Southwest, large parts of Africa and Asia).

    August 4, 2011 at 7:48 pm #10409
    MTd2
    Participant

    Digging downwards is interesting because there are kilometers of space to make a 3D planned city. A lot of people in little surface with a lot of available volume for people to live. A city of 10 million people could potentially occupy a surface of a 10 thousand people town, with sparse habitation. A rhomboid of 2kmX500mx4km would give everyone mansion sized houses.

    August 4, 2011 at 8:09 pm #10410
    Tulse
    Participant

    But why dig down at Antarctica? Why not use cheap energy to dig down in, say, Manhattan, or LA, or London, or Beijing?

    August 4, 2011 at 8:14 pm #10411
    MTd2
    Participant

    Because it is easier to dig means of melting ice than a mix of several different kinds of rocks that above 1000C. You can dig and install at the same time.

    August 4, 2011 at 8:42 pm #10412
    zapkitty
    Participant

    International treaties.

    Earthquakes induced by climate change.

    Your artful ant farm of a city won’t be quite so artful between quakes, ice shift and ice loss.

    August 4, 2011 at 8:51 pm #10413
    MTd2
    Participant

    For ice shift, this is why I thought in positioning it close to the transantarctic moutains. But it is too far away of the cost so I don’t think climate change will be a problem.

    August 4, 2011 at 9:14 pm #10415
    zapkitty
    Participant

    MTd2 wrote: For ice shift, this is why I thought in positioning it close to the transantarctic moutains. But it is too far away of the cost so I don’t think climate change will be a problem.

    Earthquakes would probably tend to think in different terms 🙂

    Even shifts at the coastal edge will have repercussions throughout the continent and, more importantly, ice sheet losses will not be limited to the coasts. The coasts are just where it has started.

    As science-fictional as it sounds we’re now facing those kinds of planetary changes when you speak in the time scale of building cities in the ice.

    August 5, 2011 at 7:55 am #10417
    JimmyT
    Participant

    There may well be good reasons to colonize Antarctica. Think of the vast mineral wealth which surely exists on that largely unexplored Continent. Unexplored at least from a geological standpoint.

    August 5, 2011 at 6:01 pm #10420
    Breakable
    Keymaster

    I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Believe me we will be able to colonize EVERYTHING once we have fusion power.

    August 5, 2011 at 6:22 pm #10421
    zapkitty
    Participant

    JimmyT wrote: There may well be good reasons to colonize Antarctica. Think of the vast mineral wealth which surely exists on that largely unexplored Continent. Unexplored at least from a geological standpoint.

    Yes, and that’s why various treaties have placed Antarctica off-limits… too keep ourselves from destroying the continent, and ourselves, warring over those resources.

    August 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm #10422
    zapkitty
    Participant

    Breakable wrote: I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Believe me we will be able to colonize EVERYTHING once we have fusion power.

    Sure! Even in the Antarctic ice!

    … as long as the cities are flexible enough and mobile enough 🙂

    August 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm #10423
    zapkitty
    Participant

    … and besides, with fusion we can get whatever resources we need economically from current U.S. holdings.

    There’s a lot of stuff in the continental U.S. that could be obtained here instead of imported if cheap, problem-free power was available.

    And that applies to other nations and the resources in locations they already have access to as well.

    August 5, 2011 at 6:37 pm #10424
    vansig
    Participant

    zapkitty wrote:

    I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Believe me we will be able to colonize EVERYTHING once we have fusion power.

    Sure! Even in the Antarctic ice!

    … as long as the cities are flexible enough and mobile enough 🙂

    it’s not about whether we are able.

    Antarctica is off limits by international treaty.
    Fusion will not change that, and i dont want to change that.

    I’d rather be mining minerals on asteroids

    August 6, 2011 at 9:53 am #10430
    JimmyT
    Participant

    vansig wrote:

    I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Believe me we will be able to colonize EVERYTHING once we have fusion power.

    Sure! Even in the Antarctic ice!

    … as long as the cities are flexible enough and mobile enough 🙂

    it’s not about whether we are able.

    Antarctica is off limits by international treaty.
    Fusion will not change that, and i dont want to change that.

    I’d rather be mining minerals on asteroids

    The only reason all nations have supported this agreement is because it is a practical impossibility at this point. Nations one and all will quickly abandon this treaty under one pretense or another if it becomes viable.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.