Help me understand the societal implications of fusion power
October 16, 2014 8:18 AM Subscribe
Putting aside the question of whether or not we will actually have fusion power soon, does anyone have any science fiction or essays to help me understand the implications of fusion power?
I know it's cleaner and safer and can power the whole planet's needs. All that sounds great. But ... what things, previously thought impossible, would suddenly become possible with fusion?
(side note: I'm not a deep science fiction person so I'd personally lean more on the "pop science" side of the spectrum more than the "someone wrote a 1000 page dissertation, go check it out for the most complete source" side.)
I know it's cleaner and safer and can power the whole planet's needs. All that sounds great. But ... what things, previously thought impossible, would suddenly become possible with fusion?
(side note: I'm not a deep science fiction person so I'd personally lean more on the "pop science" side of the spectrum more than the "someone wrote a 1000 page dissertation, go check it out for the most complete source" side.)
Fusion power would make fast travel within the solar system possible. A trip to Mars could take 30 days instead of 200. Interplanetary travel could become commonplace.
posted by Rob Rockets at 8:39 AM on October 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Rob Rockets at 8:39 AM on October 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
If the compact reactors are possible like Lockheed predicts, we might be able to fly very large aircraft for much longer distances than today, and possibly cheaper and faster (since most flights today try to optimize fuel consumption)
posted by JoeZydeco at 8:43 AM on October 16, 2014
posted by JoeZydeco at 8:43 AM on October 16, 2014
Response by poster: Nothing that is currently thought impossible would become possible
Yeah, I guess I didn't say that right. I should have said a more plain "what would change?" For example:
* A trip to mars is 30 days is BONKERS
* China and the US severely limiting their pollution would be AMAZING
* A new middle east situation that's less oil-centric sounds SUPER
posted by jragon at 8:46 AM on October 16, 2014
Yeah, I guess I didn't say that right. I should have said a more plain "what would change?" For example:
* A trip to mars is 30 days is BONKERS
* China and the US severely limiting their pollution would be AMAZING
* A new middle east situation that's less oil-centric sounds SUPER
posted by jragon at 8:46 AM on October 16, 2014
Vast amounts of land with no water near them would suddenly be fertile, as de-desalinization is extraordinarily energy hungry. No one would be hungry because of where they lived. Only because of who controlled their land.
Global trade would become both cheaper and less necessary (we wouldn't need to move food around). We wouldn't need to be friendly with neighbors anymore.
Utopia or oblivion.
posted by bensherman at 9:00 AM on October 16, 2014
Global trade would become both cheaper and less necessary (we wouldn't need to move food around). We wouldn't need to be friendly with neighbors anymore.
Utopia or oblivion.
posted by bensherman at 9:00 AM on October 16, 2014
The deuterium industry would expand (assuming the Lockheed-Martin thing turns out to be legit). I think this would mean large plants processing huge volumes of ocean water.
[Hopefully the designers would have the sense to make them look exactly like the "fluid karma" plant in Southland Tales.]
posted by paper chromatographologist at 9:02 AM on October 16, 2014
[Hopefully the designers would have the sense to make them look exactly like the "fluid karma" plant in Southland Tales.]
posted by paper chromatographologist at 9:02 AM on October 16, 2014
Desalinization becomes econonmically feasible, ending fresh water concerns worldwide since the vast majority of the population lives within easy pumping distance of the coast.
Treatment of several waste streams into liquid fuel becomes economically feasible with cheap energy-and liquid fuel would still likely be really handy to run small engines(chainsaws, lawnmowers, etc) and probably for cars and such. This is things like those huge putrid pools from factory farms into liquid fuels and probably even municipal sewage.
If it is really cheap power we can use C02 from the atmosphere and natural gas to synthesize oil and greatly reduce the need for drilling (some of the chemicals from oil likely will NEVER be feasible to synthesize but this is very small numbers).
And really, prosperity for everyone. The biggest limitation of prosperity and economic growth is cheap and abundant energy. If you have enough of it you have one of the cornerstones of prosperity.
IF this comes to fruition it will change most of the limits society is currently bumping into, in the same way the agricultural revolution changed the lives of stone age societies and the way steam power changed the medieval age into the industrial age. The changes are huge and unpredictable.
posted by bartonlong at 9:03 AM on October 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Treatment of several waste streams into liquid fuel becomes economically feasible with cheap energy-and liquid fuel would still likely be really handy to run small engines(chainsaws, lawnmowers, etc) and probably for cars and such. This is things like those huge putrid pools from factory farms into liquid fuels and probably even municipal sewage.
If it is really cheap power we can use C02 from the atmosphere and natural gas to synthesize oil and greatly reduce the need for drilling (some of the chemicals from oil likely will NEVER be feasible to synthesize but this is very small numbers).
And really, prosperity for everyone. The biggest limitation of prosperity and economic growth is cheap and abundant energy. If you have enough of it you have one of the cornerstones of prosperity.
IF this comes to fruition it will change most of the limits society is currently bumping into, in the same way the agricultural revolution changed the lives of stone age societies and the way steam power changed the medieval age into the industrial age. The changes are huge and unpredictable.
posted by bartonlong at 9:03 AM on October 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Removing salt from sea water is a very power hungry operation. What if it was cost effective to pump significant volumes of water to the middle of the Sahara desert and create a new agricultural area larger than any in history?
posted by sammyo at 9:03 AM on October 16, 2014
posted by sammyo at 9:03 AM on October 16, 2014
A new middle east situation that's less oil-centric sounds SUPER
Depends. A Saudi Arabia without oil would be down to pretty much a single viable export --- angry young men.
It is nearly impossible to fully encapsulate what the potential changes nearly limitless clean power could bring. in many ways, the history of human civilisation is the story of us successfully learning how to use successively more powerful, cheaper energy sources. There's a Harvard primatologist with a new book out arguing that the trigger for our evolution into Homo sapiens was learning to cook food, because it takes much less energy to digest, energy we can divert into supporting a bigger brain and more offspring. The entire industrial revolution is essentially the process of replacing human and animal muscle power with fossil fuels, and the fruits of that surplus are the difference between the world in 1600 and the world now --- which has 8 times the people, as well as cars planes, the Internet, everything.
posted by Diablevert at 9:03 AM on October 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
Depends. A Saudi Arabia without oil would be down to pretty much a single viable export --- angry young men.
It is nearly impossible to fully encapsulate what the potential changes nearly limitless clean power could bring. in many ways, the history of human civilisation is the story of us successfully learning how to use successively more powerful, cheaper energy sources. There's a Harvard primatologist with a new book out arguing that the trigger for our evolution into Homo sapiens was learning to cook food, because it takes much less energy to digest, energy we can divert into supporting a bigger brain and more offspring. The entire industrial revolution is essentially the process of replacing human and animal muscle power with fossil fuels, and the fruits of that surplus are the difference between the world in 1600 and the world now --- which has 8 times the people, as well as cars planes, the Internet, everything.
posted by Diablevert at 9:03 AM on October 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
Might look to ways that cheap energy changed Western European and United States lifestyles during the late Victorian and Edwardian eras: It wasn't quite the flight to the suburbs of the post-WWII "build out all the roads!" era, but cheap transportation, lighting, and cooking fuels meant that densities could drop dramatically, think Mumbai sprawling into things looking like the tweens and twentys 'burbs on Long Island. Suburbs happened again (after the great migration from the rural areas into the cities of the early Industrial Revolution).
(and on the "build out all the roads" era: energy costs of concrete are currently pretty huge, and could turn into "anywhere there's limestone or old concrete"...)
Power concerns over the modern Internet disappear, so virtual goods become that much more cheaper than physical goods (ie: The "carbon load of watching on demand vs delivered DVD" debate goes away, because it becomes about raw materials and particulate pollution from delivery vehicles).
I think there'll be some interesting demographic bumps as less developed countries zip through industrialization (lots of excess kids) to post-industrial (fewer than replacement rate).
posted by straw at 9:06 AM on October 16, 2014
(and on the "build out all the roads" era: energy costs of concrete are currently pretty huge, and could turn into "anywhere there's limestone or old concrete"...)
Power concerns over the modern Internet disappear, so virtual goods become that much more cheaper than physical goods (ie: The "carbon load of watching on demand vs delivered DVD" debate goes away, because it becomes about raw materials and particulate pollution from delivery vehicles).
I think there'll be some interesting demographic bumps as less developed countries zip through industrialization (lots of excess kids) to post-industrial (fewer than replacement rate).
posted by straw at 9:06 AM on October 16, 2014
What would change?
While global warming could be reversed in a massive shift away from fossil fuels, that shift would be toward electrically powering everything, so the new crises would revolve around shortages in materials required for electrical systems, notably copper. So "peak oil" concerns would be replaced by "peak copper" issues. With 180 times 2012 global production likely still in the ground and plenty of recycling potential, those issues will be geopolitical shifts favoring nations with the biggest reserves, rather than actual shortages anytime soon.
posted by beagle at 9:09 AM on October 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
While global warming could be reversed in a massive shift away from fossil fuels, that shift would be toward electrically powering everything, so the new crises would revolve around shortages in materials required for electrical systems, notably copper. So "peak oil" concerns would be replaced by "peak copper" issues. With 180 times 2012 global production likely still in the ground and plenty of recycling potential, those issues will be geopolitical shifts favoring nations with the biggest reserves, rather than actual shortages anytime soon.
posted by beagle at 9:09 AM on October 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
You could reverse global warming by ceasing much of our current carbon emissions from coal and gas power plants. You could also condense carbon dioxide out of the air, and store it in a stable form underground as oil. Burning oil is a chemical reaction that releases energy, basically oil + oxygen turns into water, carbon dioxide, and heat. But you can reverse this process under the right conditions, so you could for example electrolyze water into oxygen and hydrogen, release the oxygen, and then crush carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas under high pressure and heat to make hydrocarbon chains. Oil manufacturers could be regulated to sequester a percentage of the oil they produce, gradually lowering the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
posted by rustcrumb at 10:35 AM on October 16, 2014
posted by rustcrumb at 10:35 AM on October 16, 2014
I feel like I remember reading somewhere that even if we could switch to fusion, the waste heat generated by current electricity use (much less the massive increases listed above) would cause huge environmental problems. I'll see if I can find a cite.
posted by RustyBrooks at 10:39 AM on October 16, 2014
posted by RustyBrooks at 10:39 AM on October 16, 2014
here's an example
I honestly have no idea if it's actually a concern or not. (Hint, though: one of the crank theories about the source of current global climate change is that it comes from waste heat more than greenhouse gasses. That claim seems clearly false. But what if suddenly you could produce 100x or 1000x or whatever as much electricity?)
posted by RustyBrooks at 10:42 AM on October 16, 2014
I honestly have no idea if it's actually a concern or not. (Hint, though: one of the crank theories about the source of current global climate change is that it comes from waste heat more than greenhouse gasses. That claim seems clearly false. But what if suddenly you could produce 100x or 1000x or whatever as much electricity?)
posted by RustyBrooks at 10:42 AM on October 16, 2014
Any highly-concentrated power generation method will produce nasty side effects. The laws of thermodynamics still apply here.
It might even be too cheap to meter ...
posted by scruss at 11:21 AM on October 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
It might even be too cheap to meter ...
posted by scruss at 11:21 AM on October 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Diablevert: "A Saudi Arabia without oil would be down to pretty much a single viable export --- angry young men. "
Right. And it's not just the Middle East. Russia's economy is very dependent on resource-extraction. Imagine what a huge, authoritarian, corrupt, and nuclear-tipped Russia would look like with that source of revenue suddenly removed. And large parts of the USA, and the U.S. economy, obviously revolve around energy. Imagine what West Virginia would look like without the coal industry—possibly the only thing bleaker than West Virginia with the coal industry.
So there's going to be a lot of economic dislocation. And just because the power will be cheap to produce (assuming this fusion thing pans out) doesn't mean the benefits of that will ever be evenly distributed.
Don't get me wrong. Cheap, clean energy would be great. But there will be some bumps along the way.
posted by adamrice at 11:27 AM on October 16, 2014
Right. And it's not just the Middle East. Russia's economy is very dependent on resource-extraction. Imagine what a huge, authoritarian, corrupt, and nuclear-tipped Russia would look like with that source of revenue suddenly removed. And large parts of the USA, and the U.S. economy, obviously revolve around energy. Imagine what West Virginia would look like without the coal industry—possibly the only thing bleaker than West Virginia with the coal industry.
So there's going to be a lot of economic dislocation. And just because the power will be cheap to produce (assuming this fusion thing pans out) doesn't mean the benefits of that will ever be evenly distributed.
Don't get me wrong. Cheap, clean energy would be great. But there will be some bumps along the way.
posted by adamrice at 11:27 AM on October 16, 2014
So there's going to be a lot of economic dislocation. And just because the power will be cheap to produce (assuming this fusion thing pans out) doesn't mean the benefits of that will ever be evenly distributed.
I was thinking along these lines, as well. Especially in the US, I can't see the big energy companies allowing unlimited, cheap energy to get in the way of even larger profits. Americans will look at other nations where energy truly is too cheap to meter, and scratch their heads in wonderment. Then, they'll be told "because socialism!" and dutifully go back to work.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:20 PM on October 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I was thinking along these lines, as well. Especially in the US, I can't see the big energy companies allowing unlimited, cheap energy to get in the way of even larger profits. Americans will look at other nations where energy truly is too cheap to meter, and scratch their heads in wonderment. Then, they'll be told "because socialism!" and dutifully go back to work.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:20 PM on October 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Hydrogen fuses into helium, so these fusion plants would drastically increase the prevalence of floating balloons and people humorously changing their voices.
It's an amazing time to be alive.
posted by skewed at 12:38 PM on October 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
It's an amazing time to be alive.
posted by skewed at 12:38 PM on October 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
Actually, if we powered 100% of the world's current electricity usage off hydrogen fusion, how much extra helium would we end up with? Would it be a lot? Would we have to dispose of it?
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:48 PM on October 16, 2014
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:48 PM on October 16, 2014
States and regions with coal based economies will see many put out of work. Coal pits will be closed, abandoned, and allowed to fill with water. Eventually, that water will flow out to pollute streams and rivers. There will few coal companies around to pick up the bill, so the cost of cleanup and prevention will fall on already cash strapped states. Eventually, Federal resources will be needed.
Coal miners, their families, and those who sell to them, will be even poorer. There could be a migration like the southern cotton farmers to the North, or the Dust Bowl farmers to the West.
posted by Midnight Skulker at 12:50 PM on October 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Coal miners, their families, and those who sell to them, will be even poorer. There could be a migration like the southern cotton farmers to the North, or the Dust Bowl farmers to the West.
posted by Midnight Skulker at 12:50 PM on October 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Depending on the radioactivity of the helium, disposal may be an issue. Otherwise, if released it will migrate to the upper atmosphere and then float free into space.
posted by Midnight Skulker at 12:51 PM on October 16, 2014
posted by Midnight Skulker at 12:51 PM on October 16, 2014
Currently, the U.S. and China compete over access to oil in places like Venezuela. As China grows, this competition will likely intensify, perhaps leading to war. Viable fusion would change the dynamics of that competition, maybe shifting it, maybe eliminating it.
posted by OrangeDisk at 1:04 PM on October 16, 2014
posted by OrangeDisk at 1:04 PM on October 16, 2014
There are currently about 1.3billion people who have no access to electricity. Not having access to electricity basically guarantees you will be living in poverty, under $1 a day income poverty. This has huge implications for health, education and opportunity. No electricity means using kerosene or candles for lighting, the former of which is expensive and dangerous.
Many cultures without electricity will see significant gender impacts in terms of who is responsible for finding and carrying wood or other energy sources, so relief for this would have potentially substantial social impacts. Cheap electricity in the really seriously undeveloped world could massively change society, which would impact beyond those areas.
You are likely looking at earlier adoption of electric vehicles, though the tech availability would mean this is not super quick. A quicker change might be wide-scale adoption of heat pumps, you might see electrification of heat happen much more rapidly as consumers switch to drawing down more electricity as a substitute for other fuel sources. so gas transmission and distribution companies will go out of business, though there might still be some demand for gas for electrical generation as I would guess fusion isn't super flexible to meet demand (will stand correction) - this would tend to mean you might still need some smart solutions but you can forget bothering with a smart system and demand side initiatives which you can expect to see in the next decade or two will not happen. You would need a massive increase in transmission and distribution networks to avoid constraints limiting fusion growth.
The wind turbine and PV sectors would be done so Denmark and a few other places might take a hit to their economies. No more research in other RE sources so biffa would be sad, but would try and write a bid to look at fusion policy very quickly indeed.
posted by biffa at 1:06 PM on October 16, 2014
Many cultures without electricity will see significant gender impacts in terms of who is responsible for finding and carrying wood or other energy sources, so relief for this would have potentially substantial social impacts. Cheap electricity in the really seriously undeveloped world could massively change society, which would impact beyond those areas.
You are likely looking at earlier adoption of electric vehicles, though the tech availability would mean this is not super quick. A quicker change might be wide-scale adoption of heat pumps, you might see electrification of heat happen much more rapidly as consumers switch to drawing down more electricity as a substitute for other fuel sources. so gas transmission and distribution companies will go out of business, though there might still be some demand for gas for electrical generation as I would guess fusion isn't super flexible to meet demand (will stand correction) - this would tend to mean you might still need some smart solutions but you can forget bothering with a smart system and demand side initiatives which you can expect to see in the next decade or two will not happen. You would need a massive increase in transmission and distribution networks to avoid constraints limiting fusion growth.
The wind turbine and PV sectors would be done so Denmark and a few other places might take a hit to their economies. No more research in other RE sources so biffa would be sad, but would try and write a bid to look at fusion policy very quickly indeed.
posted by biffa at 1:06 PM on October 16, 2014
So...Are there any downsides? Safety concerns? What would happen, say, if a Fukushima-style event hit a fusion plant? Similar results? Even worse?
posted by Thorzdad at 1:18 PM on October 16, 2014
posted by Thorzdad at 1:18 PM on October 16, 2014
Substantial reductions in fuel poverty, in the UK this impacts about 25% of households and doubled in less than ten years. Impacts on welfare and health. I suspect there would be similar benefits in other developed countries.
One possible downside: increased light pollution as cheap electricity removes an incentive for switching off.
If fusion pushes out a lot of fossil fuel use then you are also making petrochemical feedstocks a lot cheaper, this might mean increased plastic production with some implications for the global environment.
posted by biffa at 2:37 PM on October 16, 2014
One possible downside: increased light pollution as cheap electricity removes an incentive for switching off.
If fusion pushes out a lot of fossil fuel use then you are also making petrochemical feedstocks a lot cheaper, this might mean increased plastic production with some implications for the global environment.
posted by biffa at 2:37 PM on October 16, 2014
Immediate downsides in an earthquake? Might might have to restart the reactor. Black-starting a grid is no fun, and I image the thermal shock of having one of these beasties going cold won't be great, and may require extensive repair/testing before a restart.
The Deuterium/Tritium reactor does pump out a lot of high energy neutrons, so will irradiate any materials near it through neutron activation. So the casing and materials will be hazardous waste. You also generate quite a bit of tritium, which my local reactors have a habit of emitting into Lake Ontario. It's not exactly fun to have around.
The biggest issue, though, is from daily operations, and is that these will be thermal plants. That means that - somewhere down the line from all the whizzo atom boffinry is a plain old steam turbine, turning heat to work. You'll need access to copious water to run these things, or be prepared to heat up the local air quite considerably with a closed cycle condenser/diffuser (aka big-ass radiator). They will still use lots of material like concrete, steel and copper, because there isn't any way to make transformers or turbines any smaller. You'll still need all the wires. You'll still be constrained by metallurgical limits in your steam turbines, and there will always always always be waste heat.
The other issue is: even if L-M get their touted design to market in 5+10 years, it'll be a further 20 years before the technology would be mainstream, as utility generation codes are incredibly conservative. So in the intervening 35 years, I'm gonna build the living fuck out of my wind turbines and solar plants, retire, and let's see if there's any grid capacity left over for those fusion boys.
posted by scruss at 3:01 PM on October 16, 2014
The Deuterium/Tritium reactor does pump out a lot of high energy neutrons, so will irradiate any materials near it through neutron activation. So the casing and materials will be hazardous waste. You also generate quite a bit of tritium, which my local reactors have a habit of emitting into Lake Ontario. It's not exactly fun to have around.
The biggest issue, though, is from daily operations, and is that these will be thermal plants. That means that - somewhere down the line from all the whizzo atom boffinry is a plain old steam turbine, turning heat to work. You'll need access to copious water to run these things, or be prepared to heat up the local air quite considerably with a closed cycle condenser/diffuser (aka big-ass radiator). They will still use lots of material like concrete, steel and copper, because there isn't any way to make transformers or turbines any smaller. You'll still need all the wires. You'll still be constrained by metallurgical limits in your steam turbines, and there will always always always be waste heat.
The other issue is: even if L-M get their touted design to market in 5+10 years, it'll be a further 20 years before the technology would be mainstream, as utility generation codes are incredibly conservative. So in the intervening 35 years, I'm gonna build the living fuck out of my wind turbines and solar plants, retire, and let's see if there's any grid capacity left over for those fusion boys.
posted by scruss at 3:01 PM on October 16, 2014
If you don't mind that it is military science fiction (that is, geared around space wars and such) with a touch of political overtones, David Weber's Honorverse series has its major societies built around fusion power. There is even an up-and-coming society built on fission and some of their ideas are adapted into the main civilization's technology base.
posted by fireoyster at 12:17 AM on October 17, 2014
posted by fireoyster at 12:17 AM on October 17, 2014
As a minor benefit, aluminium should get much cheaper to produce.
Possibly other expensive energy heavy industrial processes (Diamond manufacturing?)
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:15 AM on October 17, 2014
Possibly other expensive energy heavy industrial processes (Diamond manufacturing?)
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:15 AM on October 17, 2014
Response by poster: Thanks, all! This is all interesting stuff.
And thanks @fireoyster - I'll take a look at Honorverse.
posted by jragon at 9:36 AM on October 18, 2014
And thanks @fireoyster - I'll take a look at Honorverse.
posted by jragon at 9:36 AM on October 18, 2014
« Older Can you help me align this HTML with CSS? | Any tips/methods for breaking out of negative... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by sonic meat machine at 8:37 AM on October 16, 2014 [2 favorites]