Down in Playing Games I postulated the theory that we need to use each level of energy development to get to the next level. You go from wood fires, to wind and water power, then coal, develop electricity, then nuclear power gets developed - and each new level requires innovative thinking and technologies to get the most out of them. When the technology is more or less mature and (perhaps) facing a decline in the availability of the resources needed - then you allocate resources to developing the next level.
However, we've been blocked in developing nuclear power in the US for political reasons. (France developed the hell out of it, and China's just ordered about 100 nuclear power plants. Good thing they know how to mass-produce stuff, eh?)
And other alternatives... sigh. Nuclear's out. Oil and coal are out. Oil shale? Out. Hydro is pretty well maxed out. Wind? Kills birds, environmentals hate it. Tidal? Fish got rights too, man! Solar's getting quite possible - gut feeling on that, though, is the storage isn't QUITE ready yet. Hydrogen? Well - you need something to generate it - and that's been the major sticking point. Basically, you've got a situation where nothing is acceptable if it's got enough potential to replace what we've already got.
But there've been folks working on stuff in the background. Most SF fans are familar with the Bussard ramjet - and I posted a while back on Dr. Bussard's attempt to come up with funding for a proof-of-concept small, inertial electrostatic confinement reactor, based on the Farnsworth Fusor. The Navy funded a proof-of-concept model - and it worked. Apparently the results are interesting.
Looks like, reading between the lines in the comments, there's some significant progress, and it may well be worth spending about $200 million for a 100 MWatt (yep, megawatt - apparently the scaling up of this is such there's not much point to building a 1-10 MWatt test model...) model. If THAT is successful - then look for a revolution.
You can get more info from the forum at Talk-Polywell.Org
But a cautionary note - we've been promised fusion since the 1950s, and billions are spent each year on it. Personally, I think government involvement with something like fusion research turns it into a never-ending jobs program for PhDs - but that's as may be. There MAY be something useful coming out of the research in another 30 years or so. I'm not holding my breath for the government fusion programs, but the Bussard program... I'm hopeful.
Now, I've mentioned BlackLight Power before. The published theory on their ideas has been fairly well debunked. However... they're about to put out 50Kw prototypes. 20 of them.
Which means one of two things. Either they're onto something, or they're REALLY good scam artists.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time physics got a shakeup.
There comes a point in some games where you realize that making it to the next level is assured, if you don't screw up something simple (like diplomacy in the ME) and blow the game. I'm thinking that with all the new stuff coming on line with solar, and with the BLP process, the Bussard fusion reactor... we may be able to make it.
J.
Comments (2)
May be,, when we look back, that Bussard gave us the solar system.
Mars in 38 days, Saturn in 76 days.
Posted by RogerFox | July 11, 2008 9:13 PM
Posted on July 11, 2008 21:13
Remember that Bussard worked over the original fusion equations way back in the '60s and went the Tokamak route with magnetic containment. That actually does create fusion, just not a return on energy investment. Change the power input to electrostatic containment, reducing that by a hefty whack and fusion then returns energy. Pretty simple and can be demonstrated on a desktop rig. Full scale is happening in New Mexico this year. Results after turn-on are expected next year... and it is all off-the-shelf tech. The physics works, the energy equations work, the power return works: show the results, you have an energy supply. And since it was Bussard who was right about fusion being able to be done via magnetism, and right with return on energy investment via electrostatic, it holds real promise.
Best bet: space based solar via nanoscale materials. That will knock all the major price hassles out of Gerard K. O'Neill's Princeton figures, which were already economically viable. In 1968. Which is why the space program got killed via government... can't get clean, cheap and safe power from space, that would hurt humanity too much.
Some folks need to be held accountable for their 'progressive' views. Tar and feather accountable...
Posted by ajacksonian | July 13, 2008 5:41 AM
Posted on July 13, 2008 05:41