What can FF do to make other resources a "non-issue"

[vansig]

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Aside from water (which has been much discussed already), what can FF do to make other resources a “non issue” too?

Fuels can be made:
first, electrolysis splits water: 2 H2O -> 2 H2 + O2; then heat CO2 with the hydrogen, in absence of oxygen, to get a variety of simple and complex hydrocarbons.

Once it becomes cheaper to do this, than to mine fossil fuels, the carbon cycle closes.

[Breakable]

vansig wrote:
Fuels can be made:
first, electrolysis splits water: 2 H2O -> 2 H2 + O2; then heat CO2 with the hydrogen, in absence of oxygen, to get a variety of simple and complex hydrocarbons.

Once it becomes cheaper to do this, than to mine fossil fuels, the carbon cycle closes.

Exactly.
This is just one simple example.
EVERYTHING IS ENERGY!
Food, water, oxygen, materials, work, though (processing power), travel, housing, war … etc.

[Phil’s Dad]

Breakable wrote:

Fuels can be made:
first, electrolysis splits water: 2 H2 -> 2 H2 + O2; then heat CO2 with the hydrogen, in absence of oxygen, to get a variety of simple and complex hydrocarbons.

Once it becomes cheaper to do this, than to mine fossil fuels, the carbon cycle closes.

Exactly.
This is just one simple example.
EVERYTHING IS ENERGY!
Food, water, oxygen, materials, work, though (processing power), travel, housing, war … etc.

Good – back on topic.

Vansig is quite right about closed cycle fuels – useful for air travel for example where an electric plane probably will not do it. What fascinates me though is thinking beyond “more of the same”. For example how might we generate metals or substitute materials (other than just digging faster and deeper) if only we had the energy to make it viable. What about totally new forms of transport? How about things designed to bring all standards of living up to the highest without bankrupting the planet?

[Breakable]

I guess the amount of resources available after FF will make a lot of fictional dreams come true, such as undersea cities, flying castles, cosmic ships…
Hopefully this wont enable another WW. Still I guess a WW can start in any case – high resource or low resource – does not matter.

[Phil’s Dad]

Breakable wrote: I guess the amount of resources available after FF will make a lot of fictional dreams come true, such as undersea cities, flying castles, cosmic ships…
Hopefully this wont enable another WW. Still I guess a WW can start in any case – high resource or low resource – does not matter.

Sadly it is true that the decision to go to war generally precedes the stated reason for doing so.

On a more positive note; will you expand on your first sentence? What might an unconstrained world look like? Anyone else?

Isn’t this what should be in the promotional video, the game, artists impressions on this web site, etc?

This is what excites me about this project. Doing what we do now faster or cheaper is all-well-and-good but it is freeing up the things we don’t / can’t / won’t do now that will make a difference.

[dennisp]

I wouldn’t call asteroid mining fictional if focus fusion turns real. The Polywell people are talking $27/kg to orbit, at prices like that asteroid mining and real space colonization become economical. I suspect focus fusion rockets would be even cheaper. One modest nickel-iron asteroid would easily make it worthwhile.

Between asteroid mining, fusion torch recycling, fuel production from CO2, and cheap power making indoor farming economical, I would expect most of the resource extraction we do now to quickly become obsolete. We could have a much lighter footprint on the planet, even as our standard of living improves.

[vansig]

nemmart wrote:
Another aspect that particularly troubles to me: if FF was as close as it sometimes appears, I’d think funding would be pouring in. […] So why hasn’t someone or some organization with deep pockets decided to fund this?

Controlled fusion is very hard to accomplish. there is science remaining to do. and the skeptics and naysayers are very loud. Funding will not be so hard to obtain after the next set of feasibility questions is answered, but right now, those funders do not know which of several schemes to invest in.

Do you know how to make the slope of the yield curve steeper?
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/new_calibration_confirms_ff-1s_high_fusion_yields/

The scheme that’s in the lead by end of this year should be funded, yes. Can you educate the investors and give them confident numbers for probability of success?

[dennisp]

I think in discussions like this, people are mentally putting the question in the form “If FF works…” and answering in kind. At least I do. Later I go back to worrying about whether it will work.

FF seems bulky for an airplane, but we probably don’t need an airplane that can fly nonstop for a year. According to other analysis on these forums, FF could produce jet fuel at a good price from CO2 in the atmosphere, so we don’t need to keep drilling oil just to keep the planes flying.

[Breakable]

Just an idea how the shielding requirements can be reduced depending on the amount of radiation and safety requirements.
Basically if the reactors would be operated in flight only, special airports would be used and all other planes would be equipped with x-ray detectors then probably only the passenger side could be shielded.
Otherwise the shielding can be still reduced more than normal if the passengers and reactors are separated by wingspan.
Edit. Drawing:
http://imgur.com/vUx5D
It was a hell to paint it with mac trackpad

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: Just an idea how the shielding requirements can be reduced depending on the amount of radiation and safety requirements.
Basically if the reactors would be operated in flight only, special airports would be used and all other planes would be equipped with x-ray detectors then probably only the passenger side could be shielded.
Otherwise the shielding can be still reduced more than normal if the passengers and reactors are separated by wingspan.
Edit. Drawing:
http://imgur.com/vUx5D
It was a hell to paint it with mac trackpad

AFAIK, all the X-rays are captured as part of the photoelectric current generation. And the water/boron shells catch the soft neutrons from side-reactions.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
AFAIK, all the X-rays are captured as part of the photoelectric current generation. And the water/boron shells catch the soft neutrons from side-reactions.

I am not an expert in radiation management, but I think that shielding is a function of radioactivity. And until I see some number I think that radioactive isotopes will probably accumulate in a running FF module until it is turned off and “cools” down.

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote:

AFAIK, all the X-rays are captured as part of the photoelectric current generation. And the water/boron shells catch the soft neutrons from side-reactions.

I am not an expert in radiation management, but I think that shielding is a function of radioactivity. And until I see some number I think that radioactive isotopes will probably accumulate in a running FF module until it is turned off and “cools” down.

Eric stated in the Google Talks video that the core cools down to background radiation levels in 13 hours, citing a half-life of something like 20 minutes. He compares the starting radiation level to a room full of school kids- not much compared to fission plants

[Breakable]

Aeronaut wrote:
Eric stated in the Google Talks video that the core cools down to background radiation levels in 13 hours, citing a half-life of something like 20 minutes. He compares the starting radiation level to a room full of school kids- not much compared to fission plants

I think it should depend on how long you run it.

[zapkitty]

Breakable wrote:

Eric stated in the Google Talks video that the core cools down to background radiation levels in 13 hours, citing a half-life of something like 20 minutes. He compares the starting radiation level to a room full of school kids- not much compared to fission plants

I think it should depend on how long you run it.

Why should it?

To simplify it a bit… if the reactor is creating radioactive byproducts with a certain (short) half-life then those products will decay regardless of whether the reactor is operating or not. Thus the most recent byproduct made is what will govern the length of the elevated radiation level in the FF casing.

In other words if you started a standard fission reactor and ran it for only a day you’d still be dealing with radioactive byproducts with a half-life measured in centuries… byproducts that can only be called nuclear waste as they will outlast the lifetime of the reactor that created them many times over.

[Breakable]

zapkitty wrote:
Why should it?

Because the longer term byproducts can be accumulating and their combined radioactivity can increase the longer you run the reactor.

[Author]

Posts