So helium is a limited resource. Okay gotcha. So why not take two hydrogen atoms. Take their protons and neutrons. And just fucking start squeezing them together until you get helium?

And I don’t mean in the same way you get H2. Those are still separate from each other.

  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    You iust described nuclear fusion. We haven’t managed to figure out how to do it in a cost effective way yet.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Technically, we only kinda just did. We’re experimenting with it currently on a very small scale, and will be scaling it up over the next 10 to 20 years. It’s very exciting time for nuclear fusion!

      • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        will be scaling it up over the next 10 to 20 years.

        Over the next 100 to 200 years. FTFY

        The ITER construction site was decided roughly 20 years ago, and the construction will take another 10 years. Beside the cost (and with the economic context, government tend to cut down research spending) the machine are huge and the technology is complex. A while ago, I’ve seen an ITER project manager showing the research toward fusion, and basically it goes up to the start of the 22th century before starting mass production of commercial fusion reactors.

        At the moment, both public projects and some start-up are far from a stable exo energetic plasma (both have been achieved separately) let alone the whole energy extraction. Public project have steady but low budget, at the moment there is some money for start-up (But if you ask for public money government will tell that there is no money). However, there is a significant probability that these start-up will bend early toward another technology. High temperature supra-conductors could be a game changer for medical imaging and particle therapy for example.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Sorry, but I’m not so skeptical, nor are most people. 10-20 may be optimistic, but the hard work of proving that a fusion reaction that produce a net positive output is even a possibility is done. More than one fusion reactor has been created. The next phase of experimentation is now with different methods of reactors to find one that might work at scale.

          At the furthest, it may be 50 years before our first commercial fusion reactor, but other technological advances we make in those decades could - and likely will - bring that date closer. It may be 100 years before fusion reactors are being widely built, but I doubt that, too.

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            It’s one of those issues where even how it’s complicated is more complicated than the vast majority of people understand. We already know fusion can work, pushes up glasses and points pompusly at the sun, but we haven’t figured out how to actually get… well, plasma to behave. Plasma dynamics is *hard :( *

            We’re not even sure it can be done at all at scale. It is entirely possible that there isn’t a way to keep plasma stable. There’s been some truly incredible advancements in plasma dynamics and plasma models in recent years which is great! and its the focus of nearly all fusion research right now. But we just don’t know.

            (Well, unless you want to build a bomb. We can do that. Lots of that.)

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Controlled and cost effective way. Fusion bombs have been a thing for half a century.