Hacker News Reader

Comment by rob74 | Hacker News Reader

Actually you don't want the transmission process to be 100% efficient. If you really captured all the fusion energy transmitted (or even just the small part of it reaching Earth), all sorts of people would complain, trust me! But fortunately that fusion reactor has more than enough power to go around...

View on HN

If only it were smaller and closer. We could make it smaller by using a force other than gravity to compress the matter. Perhaps a very strong magnetic field? If it was strong enough you’d only need a fraction of the matter.

OTOH, the concept proposed by OP is already implemented and has been working reliably for billions of years with trillions of successful deployments, while this newfangled technology you are proposing still has to be demonstrated to work...

You’re not looking at the entire cost. What are the end of life procedures when fuel is exhausted?

That's another plus! If you ever get to the end of the fusion reactor's life (which is not very likely), it's literally end of life for you (and everyone else who might still be around) too, so no need to worry about decommissioning costs and exhausted fuel anymore...

I can say the same thing about my basement fission reactor.

YBGIBG, but not in a dickish way.

Unfortunately the original developers left long ago taking the source with them, and none of them are reachable to provide an explanation even through exotic means of communication.

Trillions of deployments that are all subject to the inverse square law at a distance of 100 million miles. It's hard to comprehend how bad that efficiency is.

> But fortunately that fusion reactor has more than enough power to go around...

"All the energy we could ever use, forever and forever and forever."

"Not forever,"

Insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

They wouldn't complain for long though

Reply on news.ycombinator.com