📉 Bill Ok so IMO future of civilization rests on us harnessing fusion energy. Discuss @trohs

👉 Léo Oh cool! But I actually disagree. We will eventually figure out fusion (hopefully within the next decade or so) but it is not necessary for the future of human civilization. The sun will be emiting plenty of energy for at least the next million of years. Fusion will become more important when we start getting ready to leave the solar system. So, what's your opinion?

📉 Bill Valid points. I think with the run rate of our global economy and our (current?) dependence on constant expansion in both population and consumption, fusion is the only way to sustainably power that over the next 20+ years. I'm not convinced we can meet our energy/environmental needs with just solar/renewables. Maybe increased interest in fission can fill the gap.

👉 Léo I agree with you that the perceived necessity for constat growth is really unhealthy for society, and creates all sorts of perverse incentives. Tell me more about your assumptions. Are you assuming that people will realize the extent of climate damage and reduce usage of fossil fuels?

☕ David Antoine Maybe in the West but emerging countries still need to grow and improve their well being in general. So w/o fusion and a mix of renewable, what could help in the short term. Fission could help but preferably with molten salt third gen or rapid neutron fourth gen reactors (the latter are more difficult to build). Both are more secure then the classic pressurized boiling water cores (Canada has the only one plant w/ non pressurized boiling water core in the world).

👉 Léo Yeah, energy consumption will go up as people worldwide reach (or try to reach) the same level of comfort that AmericansEuropeans enjoy. But we still have _a lot_ of unexplored solar potential. We could power the entire planet using a small fraction of the solar energy available. Even with low-efficiency panels and limited amounts of land, that is still feasible and allows room for growth. Of course, we shouldn't put all the eggs in one basket. Nuclear will be important too!

☕ David Antoine Sure, if we can go the solar route instead of nuclear it's probably preferable just to avoid the nuclear waste problem (unless we find a way to transmute elements... In that regards, specific particle accelerators could be used on the Moon, but that's far fetched). There is also the ocean, big and still untapped source of energy, but it is easier said than done. For example: youtube.com/watch?...

👉 Léo Thank you for that link, very interesting stuff! I would like to hear more about that moon-based particle accelerator that you mentioned. Is there a reference for that or is it your idea? I'd like to learn more either way. It could give us a good (i.e., profitable) reason to explore space, which is somethingI would like to see for other reasons as well. Also, I meant to write "fusion and fission" but I hit the character limit and had to change to "nuclear" to mean both.

☕ David Antoine God I saw that years ago, I don't remember where. I can just give you a starting point on Wiki on the subject. Moon advantage is that you already have vacuum, which is big down-cost for future accelerators there (provided you reduce space access cost). Science, astronomy, tourism, mining will certainly be the top reasons for exploring space. You have to generate a space economy, exploring for exploring won't work due to the costs involved imho. bit.ly/2AVQw5k