threemonkeys (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
threemonkeys) wrote2005-06-29 08:57 pm
threemonkeys) wrote2005-06-29 08:57 pm
Differences in binding energy
Another step along the road to fusion energy was announced today. Well maybe. I'm not convinced that EU bureaucracy can legislate progress, but the commitment is interesting. Anyway, this news and the fact that the big fusion reactor in the sky was actually almost visible when I got to work this morning (I was late) made me think a bit about the role of fusion in SF.
It has been used by authors ever since enough people understood that it was the mechanism for making the sun burn. Without knowing how it might be implemented, SF writers have been using fusion as a shortcut for a realistic plentiful energy source. Others have used more fanciful sources, but if writers wants to make their work real world credible then they tend to go for fusion. That we will get workable fusion power is as much an article of faith as the existence of rocky extra-solar planets. One down, one in progress.
Now having said all that, I must say that I have noticed an interesting trend trend in the last few years. There are more mentions of antimatter derived power sources in speculative science articles. Not a predominance but there is a trend there. There has been more use of it in SF as well. Interesting.
Not that fusion and antimatter are mutually incompatible or anything like that - they may even be codependent. Nor should I say that either of these are incompatible with the exploitation of other energy sources - wind power, tidal, geothermal and so forth. In fact it is probably essential that we follow all these lines of enquiry. Unless we can predict the future, we cannot know which ones will actually come through and be useful in practice and when that might be.
It has been used by authors ever since enough people understood that it was the mechanism for making the sun burn. Without knowing how it might be implemented, SF writers have been using fusion as a shortcut for a realistic plentiful energy source. Others have used more fanciful sources, but if writers wants to make their work real world credible then they tend to go for fusion. That we will get workable fusion power is as much an article of faith as the existence of rocky extra-solar planets. One down, one in progress.
Now having said all that, I must say that I have noticed an interesting trend trend in the last few years. There are more mentions of antimatter derived power sources in speculative science articles. Not a predominance but there is a trend there. There has been more use of it in SF as well. Interesting.
Not that fusion and antimatter are mutually incompatible or anything like that - they may even be codependent. Nor should I say that either of these are incompatible with the exploitation of other energy sources - wind power, tidal, geothermal and so forth. In fact it is probably essential that we follow all these lines of enquiry. Unless we can predict the future, we cannot know which ones will actually come through and be useful in practice and when that might be.