Bernal Sphein Cyberspace

In a message dated 11/8/00 4:56:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jonlennart.beck@... writes:

<< If most of the electric energy of Europe came from one fusion
plant, and *that* one went down, we'd be up shit creek with a turd for
a paddle for sure --- or we'd have to keep lots of old coal, gas and
nuclear plants ready just in case, to be fired up with minutes' or at
most hours' notice. Somehow I get the feeling that this would not be
very cheap.

Jon L. Beck.
>>

But what if it cost as much to build a Fusion reactor that could power the
entire continent of Europe as it would to build an SPS that could power
Norway? You could build an additional redundant fusion reactor or perhaps two
that could go online if one failed. Building an SPS on the ground would be
cheaper than building one in space, but supposed you built one in space. The
Money used for building an SPS could be used to build something larger and
more massive on the ground. It could be that building a Fusion Reactor that
could power a whole continent on the ground would cost the same as building
an SPS in orbit that could power Norway. These are unknowns of course since
we have no working commercial fusion reactors and we haven't built an SPS.
For the SPS research would have to go into building cheap access to space to
get the project started on an economical basis. For the fusion reactor
research would need to go into building a self-sustaining fusion reactor that
can generate electricity at an economical rate. Research is proceeding toward
both goals, but who's to say who will reach their target first. I think
Fusion is an enabling technology rather than a disabling one. Cheaper energy
would make travel into space less expensive. A typical fusion rocket has been
described as a fusion reactor with a leak in one side, this idea would work
in the vacuum of space, but not in Earth's atmosphere since the atmosphere
would cool the plasma and prevent the fusion fuel from fusion. In this there
is two ways around this problem. The fusion reactor could stay on the ground
and power a laser that could propel a separate vehicle into orbit. The other
idea is to have the fusion reactor on the vehicle itself if sufficiently
miniturizable. The reactor would be completely enclosed and the energy
obtained from it would be used to super heat the atmosphere or a hydrogen
propellent to plasma temperatures. Of course the fusing plasma would not be
mixed with the propellent. Perhaps expended fusion plasma could be
magnetically pinched off and sent into another chamber where it can mix
explosively with the atmosphere or propellent. This would result in a "put
put" engine simular to orion, but on a smaller scale.
Fusion would allow the large scale settlement of the outer Solar System and
ultimately interstellar space, since all you need is fusion fuel and a fusion
reactor.
But who's right and who's wrong? who's to say. I think another specialized
function of an SPS would be in the production of antimatter for energy
storage for interstellar flight, this might productively be done much closer
to the Sun where the Solar Flux would remain compeditive with fusion power
production. The Sun after all requires little maintenance. An SPS close
enough to the Sun could equal the power production efficiency of any given
fusion reactor. Perhaps if power generated very near the sun could be beamed
over interplanetary distances.

Tom Kalbfus