Coming soon - Get a detailed view of why an account is flagged as spam!
view details

This post has been de-listed

It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.

24
If we ever do develop nuclear fusion technology, what are the necessary infrastructure and logistics that we need to make this technology practical, and which parts of the solar system should we mine in order to sustain this technology? (Besides the moon)
Post Flair (click to view more posts with a particular flair)
Post Body

In one of my favorite Alternate history shows For All Mankind, the first fusion reactor was created in 1986 and thanks to the discovery of a huge pocket of Helium-3 on the moon Nuclear Fusion technology develops more rapidly and it is more widely available than it is in the original timeline. And as a result, there is a decrease in fossil fuel consumption. However, it also resulted in a lot of workers in the fossil fuel industry getting laid off and after looking at another post it got me thinking.

Even if we do develop nuclear fusion technology, it's not going to be adopted overnight. We are going to come up with new infrastructure and logistics in order to make it all practical and if we ever evolve into a space faring civilization its only fair that we focus on colonizing parts of the solar system that have resources to help us sustain our fusion technology.

So what are the necessary infrastructure and logistics that we need to make this technology practical, and which parts of the solar system should we mine in order to sustain this technology? (Besides the Moon)

Comments

power distribution

The sexy part about fusion is that as far as Hank Dryrub and Joey Six-pack at the power station are concerned the fusion reactor is just a generic load you hook up to the grid.

What people often don't understand is that we've not switched off combustion because we're an evil¹ species we've not switched off combustion because a fire is an increeeeedibly adaptive process and things that aren't a fire or like a fire (ironically enough hydropower is pretty close) just act so much worse.

¹This is a major failing in science communication. People already on your side are going to feel like you're not doing enough and people who enjoy the benefits of the current system just feel like you're trying to take things. There's too little practicality in the energy conversation and it's needlessly alienating people who actually have similar interests.

How about we just use fission but like add some sick LED lights?

Author
Account Strength
100%
Account Age
5 years
Verified Email
Yes
Verified Flair
No
Total Karma
28,603
Link Karma
24,320
Comment Karma
3,934
Profile updated: 2 days ago

Subreddit

Post Details

We try to extract some basic information from the post title. This is not always successful or accurate, please use your best judgement and compare these values to the post title and body for confirmation.
Posted
3 months ago