Once we achieve sustainable fusion, will it be possible to "share" the energy with everyone else to create more independent fusions? Kinda like keeping the candle burning so as to light more candles because matches are too costly.
Now, I don't expect politics to allow sharing of fusion energy to help other countries.
Great design. I have a friend who took it a bit further, and build the Fusor with Lego bricks. Never since any worries about energy bills, he went completely off the grid!
> I don't expect politics to allow sharing of fusion energy to help other countries.
You are very wrong. ITER is a $20B international collaboration to construct an energy positive fusion reactor. The participants, including China the underwriter of the experiment detailed in this thread's article, are very much sharing.
Isn't fusion reactor basically infinite energy, I mean sure it makes total sense to no share it with other because you can sell your free energy for cash, but considering that a lot of global scientists work on it and most of the findings are published, don't think that such strategy would last long.
Just like previous predictions that the introduction of fission power plants would result in electricity 'too cheap to meter', I suspect the same will happen for fusion. Even if the fuel is nearly free, you still have to build and maintain the power plant, the grid etc., neither which is cheap.
But yes, the first ones to 'crack' the problem will have a head start in the commercial fusion power plant market, but I don't think it will last very long. As you say, most of the research is being published, and even if somebody manages to initially keep that final 'dot on the i' secret, it wouldn't take other researches long to figure it out.
From what i've read[0] it will remove about a third of the cost (probably less). About a third of energy cost goes on fuel (now almost 0), a third on the grid, and a third on the station (now probably more).
Whilst a 20-30% reduction in energy cost would be great. The really important change is that it is much more scalable and easy to get. You don't need to dig up coal, or drill for oil. All of which can be limited. With a working fusion reactor a country like Singapore can be energy independent, in a way it never could with any other type.
This independence would mean no more need to mess around in areas with these resources (think middle east) or have your countries energy rely on a third party you'd rather not rely on (think Germany and others and their reliance on Russian gas)
[0] A Piece of the Sun: The Quest for Fusion Energy - throughly enjoyed this book.
Even though the cost of energy is divided by thirds, fusion still generates so much more power that the sheer scale can overpower lots and lots of bottlenecks.
For instance, it is chemically possible to combine water (either atmospheric or from a normal water source) with atmospheric CO2 to chemically synthesize hydrocarbons. It just takes energy. So you could have a single, absolutely massive fusion plant next to an atmospheric fuel refinery and use the hydrocarbons for fuel storage and distribution. You could do likewise with hydrogen and oxygen if you wanted to make fuel cells or rockets. And this would probably be cheaper than refining fossil fuels. You could actually run OPEC out of business this way, make the electric car obsolete, make airlines carbon-neutral, etc., etc.
Climate change? Just extract the atmospheric CO2 using cheap fusion energy and turn it into an easily sequestrable form. Nitrogen fertilizers? You can make those from the air too. Drought? Use fusion power to run desalination plants. Arable land becomes a non-issue with fusion because vertical farming becomes easy. Every city could just grow whatever they needed in exactly the right climate conditions in a set of enclosed vertical farms, though they might not need to because energy will be so cheap that there's no problem shipping the stuff from Honduras anyway.
Computation scales with power, too. More power, more computation, except computation produces heat, which you need even more power to chill.
That's a great explanation of some of the benefits! These are the most important in my opinion: "You can make those from the air too. Drought? Use fusion power to run desalination plants. Arable land becomes a non-issue with fusion because vertical farming becomes easy." You could also use this water to stop desertification, which would be a great thing.
I do disagree with you on Hydrogen fuel cells replacing electric cars though. I think battery powered cars will be better than hydrogen powered ones. The power storage is more reliable, and the power transfer is more simple (lines as opposed to truck delivery or pipeline. And if we assumed that it would be done on site at stations, then they would already have power lines, so just use that!)
Even if the fuel is pretty cheap the cost of fuel isn't a huge factor in the operation of traditional nuclear power plants - a fusion power plant will still have enormous capex and opex - so in no sense will the power be "free".
Not really, it will wear out due to radiation so you need to change the body periodically, unless you use other fuel like helium-3, but it's got it's own problems - much higher fusion temperature and very rare on our planet (a lot of it on the surface of the moon though, it would be worth mining if we had working reactors).
> I don't think it'll be economically viable. I'll be happy to be proven wrong though.
I don't think current designs like the one discussed here will be. But I'm hoping it will lay the groundwork for much more useful reactors in the future.
Now, I don't expect politics to allow sharing of fusion energy to help other countries.