Ask HN: How would fusion energy change the world?
Scenario: We crack fusion. It 10x's global power output at the same cost as we pay today.
Question: What changes? Which industries rise? Which fall?
Mining becomes an even worse issue than oil (harder to find and extract; even more critical for empires to control).
Maybe recycling metals efficiently may soften the problem, but not for long, as replacing oil-based systems with electric ones will incur a massive extraction/refinement effort at a scale we collectively haven't reached yet.
Space discovery/mining/transport may be the only option from this perspective. But it has its own set of drawbacks too.
More energy available "should" mean more automation, less concentration of power (political or business), clean water, food, and given the fruits are redistributed evenly, more peace. But raw materials are also part of the equation.
Much of the costs of Energy are in distribution. Fusion power is more centralised and will incur more transmission costs than renewables close to consumption.
Probably its best use is decarbonisation of steel and production of nitrate/methane feedstock for fertiliser and industry.
Energy is not equally distributed. 10x would be in the hands of energy rich economies, not helping emerging economies.
Mining and metallurgy change their inputs. That's about all.
Possibly, public mass transport moves to more electrified modes but at scale that's still just oil displacement. Again the biggest benefit would be in emerging economies or in population centres like Beijing, Delhi and Dacca. If they had mass transit by electricity the amount of smog and public health benefits would be huge.
10x is unlikely btw. Fusion does not look to be cheap. It's a huge capital investment, comparable to fission, but bigger and mainly to avoid a small waste problem at point of use (it truly is small. High intensity radioactivityis understood, its NIMBYism stopping its storage mostly), plus avoidance of a huge mining waste and proliferation problem, but the thing is even Fusion will come with proliferation risks: it's still emitting neutrons, and can still irradiate materials. Tritium, will be needed in huge supply. Maybe from.. breeder reactors?
Or does it require a gigantic 10 sq km facility to reach that efficiency, but where the result can power Germany?
Or does it require special conditions, like cheap fusion from sea water at 1000m depth where Puerto Rico has an advantage over Nebraska?
Or massive amounts of cooling?
What materials are needed? If cobalt, will the DRC be the new Saudi Arabia?
Will the 9x new energy production be used for carbon capture after the Great Heat of 2028?
These give very different answers.
Floating cities, space ships that can travel at 80% the speed of light, and of course, whatever you need to run the most intense computational requirements, continually.
You may balk at "floating cities" (and I do mean actually flying cities that float in the clouds), yet once matter can be efficiently accelerated toward the speed of light, using such accelerated matter as a superior form of propulsion is right around the corner.
For comparison, one gallon of rich hydrogen (deuterium or tritium) contains the energy potential of ONE THOUSAND gallons of oil. That's by fusion not by burning which your quick search may turn up
"Fusion power is a proposed form of power generation that would generate electricity by using heat from nuclear fusion reactions." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Relatively little fusion energy is released as gamma radiation. See https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fusionfuel.php for some numbers ("the 3He-D fusion reaction ... generates 77% of its energy in charged particles") and the site in general for why 0.8 c isn't at all realistic.
Like, see https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/slowerlight2.php for starship design plans which assume working fusion engines, which max out at 0.1 c.
>The conversion is 1 atomic mass unit = 931.494028(±0.000023) MeV.
That estimate releases two gamma particles at ~465 MeV each.
Sounds like a lot a lot.
> which max out at 0.1 c.
I question this account though I will read it and contemplate more thoroughly!
> the fusion of deuterium and tritium (D-T), has the lowest ignition temperature (40 million degrees K, or 5.2 keV). However, 80% of its energy output is in highly energetic neutral particles (neutrons) that cannot be contained by magnetic fields or directed for thrust.
> In contrast, the 3He-D fusion reaction (ignition temperature = 30 keV) generates 77% of its energy in charged particles, resulting in substantial reduction of shielding and radiator mass. However, troublesome neutrons comprise a small part of its energy (4% at ion temperatures = 50 keV, due to a D-D side reaction),
First, your argument on the energy in the gama is wildly wrong and shows you do not understand what you are reading (I know -$k). That one fuel source has excessive neutron bombardment is not the argument against the gama being the Grail of fusion. We could jump on redit and state that GIVEN MAN'S PRESENT KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNOLOGY we should move up the food chain to find the safest way just to release the damn thing. Nickel? Etc.
Secondly, the conventional intellectual mind breaks on the correlation between speed (toward light), time dilation, and potential. The physics twerk being described is your friend, if you can pay for it (energetically.) from the outside of acceleration, do not get lost on time, rather mass gain. Standing waves and constructive and destructive interference, and pulse modulations later, can a self contained counter weight be accelerated toward light in the controlled arbitrary displacement of mass (in this case the craft's center of gravity.)
Yes. With the gama harvesting true fusion offers, the superior propulsion of mass acceleration toward light speed would change our everythings.