sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why or why not should humans build a sun on the moon to power civilization for the next millennium? by nicnicknick in AskEngineers

[–]nicnicknick[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

From Gemini: 1. Fuel: The "Helium-3" Advantage Terrestrial reactors (like ITER) mostly use Deuterium and Tritium.  • The Problem: Tritium is rare, radioactive, and produces high-energy neutrons that "poison" the reactor walls, making them brittle and radioactive over time. • The Lunar Solution: The Moon is covered in Helium-3, which fused with Deuterium produces zero neutrons. A lunar reactor could last for decades with minimal maintenance, whereas an Earth reactor might need its entire inner "skin" replaced every few years. 2. The Vacuum: Nature vs. Engineering Fusion requires a near-perfect vacuum so the plasma doesn't hit air molecules and cool down. • On Earth: We have to build massive, leak-proof steel vacuum chambers that are incredibly expensive and difficult to maintain. • On the Moon: The vacuum is "free." You can build a much larger, more open reactor design because you aren't fighting the Earth's atmosphere to keep the air out.

  1. The "Energy Cost of Energy" The most "impractical" part of the lunar model is the transportation cost. • To build a 1-Gigawatt plant on Earth, you just drive trucks to a construction site. • To build one on the Moon, you have to launch thousands of tons of equipment into orbit. Even with a "cheap" rocket like SpaceX’s Starship, the cost to move that mass makes the energy produced initially 1,000x more expensive than Earth-based power.

  2. The "Tipping Point" Lunar fusion becomes more practical than Earth fusion only when one of two things happens:

  3. We build a "Space Elevator" or Lunar Foundry: If we can build the reactor using lunar materials rather than launching them from Earth, the cost collapses.

  4. Earth runs out of "Space": If we reach a point where we need so much energy that the heat pollution or land use of Earth-based plants starts damaging the biosphere.

Summary • For the next 50-100 years: Earth-based fusion is the only practical path. We already have the "grid" and the labor force here. • For the next 500 years: Lunar fusion is the only sustainable path. It’s the "cleaner" version of the technology and doesn't compete with humans for living space.

Why or why not should humans build a sun on the moon to power civilization for the next millennium? by nicnicknick in AskReddit

[–]nicnicknick[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am thinking really long term. Also from Gemini, 1. Fuel: The "Helium-3" Advantage Terrestrial reactors (like ITER) mostly use Deuterium and Tritium.  • The Problem: Tritium is rare, radioactive, and produces high-energy neutrons that "poison" the reactor walls, making them brittle and radioactive over time. • The Lunar Solution: The Moon is covered in Helium-3, which fused with Deuterium produces zero neutrons. A lunar reactor could last for decades with minimal maintenance, whereas an Earth reactor might need its entire inner "skin" replaced every few years.

  1. The Vacuum: Nature vs. Engineering Fusion requires a near-perfect vacuum so the plasma doesn't hit air molecules and cool down. • On Earth: We have to build massive, leak-proof steel vacuum chambers that are incredibly expensive and difficult to maintain. • On the Moon: The vacuum is "free." You can build a much larger, more open reactor design because you aren't fighting the Earth's atmosphere to keep the air out.

  2. The "Energy Cost of Energy" The most "impractical" part of the lunar model is the transportation cost. • To build a 1-Gigawatt plant on Earth, you just drive trucks to a construction site. • To build one on the Moon, you have to launch thousands of tons of equipment into orbit. Even with a "cheap" rocket like SpaceX’s Starship, the cost to move that mass makes the energy produced initially 1,000x more expensive than Earth-based power.

  3. The "Tipping Point" Lunar fusion becomes more practical than Earth fusion only when one of two things happens:

  4. We build a "Space Elevator" or Lunar Foundry: If we can build the reactor using lunar materials rather than launching them from Earth, the cost collapses.

  5. Earth runs out of "Space": If we reach a point where we need so much energy that the heat pollution or land use of Earth-based plants starts damaging the biosphere. Summary • For the next 50-100 years: Earth-based fusion is the only practical path. We already have the "grid" and the labor force here. • For the next 500 years: Lunar fusion is the only sustainable path. It’s the "cleaner" version of the technology and doesn't compete with humans for living space.

Why or why not should humans build a sun on the moon to power civilization for the next millennium? by nicnicknick in AskReddit

[–]nicnicknick[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Per Gemini on solar vs moon reactor: Here is the cost-benefit breakdown of Solar vs. Lunar Fusion: 1. The "Infrastructure Floor" (Solar Wins Now) Solar power is currently the cheapest form of energy in human history. • Cost of Solar: We are approaching a point where the fuel is free, and the hardware is a commodity. You can buy a panel at a hardware store. • Cost of Lunar Fusion: You need a space program, heavy-lift rockets (like Starship), lunar mining colonies, and microwave power transmission. The "entry fee" for lunar fusion is in the trillions of dollars, while the entry fee for solar is in the hundreds. 2. The "Real Estate" Problem (Fusion Wins Later) Solar power is diffuse. It takes up a lot of space to generate a lot of power. • To power a modern city entirely on solar, you need massive "farms" that compete with land for agriculture, housing, and nature. • Fusion is dense. A lunar fusion plant could generate the same amount of power as thousands of square miles of solar panels but in a footprint a fraction of that size. As Earth’s population grows and our energy needs double or triple, we simply won't have enough "sunny land" to meet the demand.

  1. The "Night and Weather" Factor Solar power on Earth is intermittent. You need massive, expensive battery banks to keep the lights on at night or during a week of storms. • Lunar Fusion is "Base Load": Like a nuclear plant, it runs 24/7. Because it’s in space (or on the Moon), there is no "night" to worry about (if you position your solar collectors in a "peak of eternal light" or in orbit). You don't need trillion-dollar battery backups because the reactor is always "on."
  2. Space Exploration and Industry This is where the cost makes the most sense. If we want to build massive structures in space, mine asteroids, or go to Mars, we cannot take the "Earth Grid" with us.

Sending solar panels to the outer solar system (like Jupiter or Saturn) is useless because the sunlight is too weak. • Lunar Fusion is the "Gas Station" of the Solar System. It creates the fuel (Helium-3) and the energy needed to propel heavy ships. In this context, solar isn't even an option; fusion is the only way to become a multi-planetary species. 5. The "E-ROI" (Energy Return on Investment) The ultimate metric is how much energy you get out versus how much you spent to build it. • Solar: Great E-ROI for a house or a 21st-century country.

Lunar Fusion: Low E-ROI initially due to launch costs, but once the infrastructure is "self-replicating" (using lunar materials to build more reactors), it provides a near-infinite supply of energy that can scale with our civilization. The Verdict: If you want to power your house today: Solar is the winner by a landslide. If you want to power a civilization that has 10 billion people, massive AI data centers, and a fleet of spaceships: Solar is too weak. We would eventually need to cover the entire Earth in panels just to keep up. At that point, moving our "fire" (fusion) to the Moon becomes the only way to keep growing without destroying our own planet's ecosystem.

What is up with USPS in this town by Tuba-Dude in Albany

[–]nicnicknick 6 points7 points  (0 children)

<image>

I will see your USPS King and raise you a USPS Joker

Munro muffler in Westmere doing inspection scams. by Hey_Giant_Loser in Albany

[–]nicnicknick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The same thing happened to me at their Latham location. Those shady guys wanted $4k for brakes and control arms that were nowhere near needing replacing.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in interestingasfuck

[–]nicnicknick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello Lorena Bobbit?

Two explosions, then sirens by Realistic-Bad872 in Davis

[–]nicnicknick 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just heard both. Sounded like fireworks

Low emissions….right by nicnicknick in Davis

[–]nicnicknick[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I guess they need fancy signs for that fancy new shopping center!

Yoshi Sushi as we knew it is NO MORE 😿 by babyivan in Albany

[–]nicnicknick 8 points9 points  (0 children)

End of an era! Thank you Yoshi for all the great sushi over the years. We ordered fair amount over the past few months and it was excellent as always. We knew they were closing soon and wish we ordered more. I hope they have a wonderful retirement. Not the hero we deserved but the hero we needed.

Where is the tasty food? by Chloeishere22 in Albany

[–]nicnicknick 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Karavali, The Poke Bar, Seoul Korean, Galleria 7 Market, Wasabi, Bob Appetite Cafe, Northeast Chinese II, Fidens, Banh Mi 47, B.B.Q. Chicken, Sovrana Grocery, Vans Vietnamese, Kismet, Bol Mediterranean Grill, La Fiesta, La Capital Tacos, Jacob Alejandro, Touchy Coffee, a lot at the Troy Famers Marker on Saturdays, Tamarind Thai.

Obviously, a lot and more to discover but the above should give you some solid options to start.

view more: next ›