Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith

  • Mood:

Fast Recharge

Tags: energy, news
Subscribe

  • A Little Slice of Terramagne: YardMap

    Sadly the main program is dormant, but the YardMap concept is awesome, and many of its informative articles remain. YardMap was a citizen science…

  • Winterfest in July Bingo Card 7-1-21

    Here is my card for the Winterfest in July Bingo fest. It runs from July 1-30. Celebrate all the holidays and traditions of winter! ( See all my…

  • Bingo

    I have made bingo down the B, G, and O columns of my 6-1-21 card for the Cottoncandy Bingo fest. I also have one extra fill. B1 (caretaking) --…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 6 comments
Hmm, there's pro's and cons to that tech... Pro: aside from it's electrical characteristics, a carbon/lithium power source would be more lightweight that current systems. Con: it'd also be more combustible... probably more so that a gas tank actually.
Well, all we need is a fusion generator, and we can eliminate two of the three problems with these batteries (lithium is actually a pretty rare element in Earth's crust). We'll be able to generate enough lithium from the fusion reaction to satisfy upcoming power-storage needs, and we'll be able to supply such needs with enough energy to charge them fully in a very short time.

Combustibility shouldn't be quite as much of a problem, but then, well... yeah. It's all in how you build the darn things.
Depends on what fusion chain we're using, deuterium/deuterium or deuterium/tritium reactions produce lithium, but they're also neutron producers. A helium-3 reaction would aneutronic, but it'd be almost impossible to find enough fuel in nature.

Hypothetically it's possible to build a reactor fuelled with straight hydrogen and tritium... it wouldn't be energy producing so it would need to be powered by something like geothermal, but it would produce helium-3 as a fusion product.. which then could be used in smaller home fusion reactors that wouldn't need heavy radiation shielding.

I'm not sure how much lithium one would recover from the fusion reactions, but it at least would a stable isotope and could be recycled into power storage systems.... but of course, if you needed more power and assuming the rectors could be made small enough, one could always use that in a car instead. [no idea if it would generate 1.21 gigawatts though.]
I'm thinking more like large-scale space-based collectors, taking in the solar wind and fusing it in pulses (presuming we perfect the necessary ignition technology, which is basically a matter of tuning the harmonics in the heating lasers), then collecting and making use of the results. Like beaming all that energy out to asteroid-based mines and factories via maser, and sending off packets of useful materials like lithium or helium-3 for more local commercial usage.
>>Combustibility shouldn't be quite as much of a problem, but then, well... yeah. It's all in how you build the darn things.<<

Alas, that's the deal-breaker for me regarding much technology: humans often prefer to build cheaply rather than safely. I think fusion has great potential, if done right; but I wouldn't give it my support until I see how people actually do it and what the risks are.
Thanks for sharing!