Would you like to see a fusion reactor in Subnautica?
Ojakokko
Finland Join Date: 2017-01-20 Member: 226999Members
Finland Join Date: 2017-01-20 Member: 226999Members
I'll edit the description in later, because I spent a lot of time writing it and it disappeared when I added poll options. Writing on my phone is tedious, so I'll write it when I get home to my desktop.
******
Since they're making nuclear reactor rods and uranium radioactive (I like it because realism), a non-radioactive (or at least less radioactive) alternative would be nice. So why not fusion? It produces barely any radioactive byproducts (the reactor itself may become radioactive from the inside over time because of the constant neutron/proton bombing). It would fit the Subnautica's Sci-Fi setting perfectly, since I'd imagine we'll have fusion energy feasible in the 22nd century (It should take under 50 years to get it working as a reliable power source now). IRL hydrogen can be produced by many ways, but there's one I find particularly interesting: Electrolysis. It can be used to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water (2 H2O -> 2 H2 + 1 O2), and it is currently being used to some extent. It would fit SN well because, you know, WATER. Additionally, its is apparently already used in seabases and submersibles (oxygen production).
The only problem I find about this (I don't think it's hard to code and it can be added post-1.0) is that how you balance the hydrogen production so you won't get infinite energy. I don't want the electrolysis to break the laws of physics and have a 500+ % efficiency like the power cell charger does. However, if it has 100- % efficiency, you'll only lose power and the whole fusion thing becomes useless.
Maybe the fuel could be produced with the fabricator and the data entry would tell you it's electrolysis? The process could use water (IRL it would have to be distilled but I guess the fabricator can purify the drinkable water in the process) as a material for hydrogen (just hydrogen, no need to play with isotopes here, it's not done with the nuclear reactor either). Then it would also make sense to let you use other sources as well (for example biomatter). I don't know, I'll leave that for the community. You could also just ignore the last two chapters (sorry for poor translation if it is), I'm tired.
Another reason why I want a fusion reactor ingame is that I'd hate to think that we're still using uranium-based fission rectors after a hundred years but fusion isn't even mentioned.
******
Since they're making nuclear reactor rods and uranium radioactive (I like it because realism), a non-radioactive (or at least less radioactive) alternative would be nice. So why not fusion? It produces barely any radioactive byproducts (the reactor itself may become radioactive from the inside over time because of the constant neutron/proton bombing). It would fit the Subnautica's Sci-Fi setting perfectly, since I'd imagine we'll have fusion energy feasible in the 22nd century (It should take under 50 years to get it working as a reliable power source now). IRL hydrogen can be produced by many ways, but there's one I find particularly interesting: Electrolysis. It can be used to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water (2 H2O -> 2 H2 + 1 O2), and it is currently being used to some extent. It would fit SN well because, you know, WATER. Additionally, its is apparently already used in seabases and submersibles (oxygen production).
The only problem I find about this (I don't think it's hard to code and it can be added post-1.0) is that how you balance the hydrogen production so you won't get infinite energy. I don't want the electrolysis to break the laws of physics and have a 500+ % efficiency like the power cell charger does. However, if it has 100- % efficiency, you'll only lose power and the whole fusion thing becomes useless.
Maybe the fuel could be produced with the fabricator and the data entry would tell you it's electrolysis? The process could use water (IRL it would have to be distilled but I guess the fabricator can purify the drinkable water in the process) as a material for hydrogen (just hydrogen, no need to play with isotopes here, it's not done with the nuclear reactor either). Then it would also make sense to let you use other sources as well (for example biomatter). I don't know, I'll leave that for the community. You could also just ignore the last two chapters (sorry for poor translation if it is), I'm tired.
Another reason why I want a fusion reactor ingame is that I'd hate to think that we're still using uranium-based fission rectors after a hundred years but fusion isn't even mentioned.
Comments
The way it works is smashing hydrogen atoms together to form helium, that would work but the only Problem it is only theoretical right now, there have been fusion reactors made but they kept using more energy then they produced, the reactor would also need a lot of energy to start seeing as it requires electromagnets to make the hydrogen collide with each other, the only instance that we have seen a fusion reaction is in the core of the sun. Not to mention the immense heat and radiation the thing will produce, it would work more efficiently as a steam producer than a actual fusion reactor.
I'm sorry to be captain kill joy but you can't post anything scientific on this forum without me noticing any flaws it might have.
The size etc. Problems are easily solved: the game takes place in the 22nd century! And the nuclear reactor is also smaller than it should be (with steam turbines, they're the size if several buildings!)
That was only based on the game's leaps of logic and possible advancements in tech, I'll extend it later
*******
Also, your knoweledge is not only very basic (about the same level as mine back in 6th grade), but there are also some mistakes and the information is partially outdated. First of all, you make it sound like we have given up with fusion ("there HAVE BEEN fusion rectors","they KEPT using") which is absolutely wrong. We are still making huge advancements in fusion reactor technology, and new reactors are being built all the time. The sun (not only the core) is NOT the only instance we've seen a fusion reaction; we have managed to create fusion reactions several times. Also, it is not theoretical anymore; while it is still far from being practical, several working reactors have been built and are being built all the time.
It is true that the reactors using more energy than they produce is a problem - or used to be anyways. The first nuclear reactor that produced more energy than it used was built a couple of years ago. Currently, the problem is keeping the reaction going; the current record is less than an hour.
The electromagnets in a TOKAMAK (the most common reactor type currently) are there to confine plasma, not to collide atoms together. The fusion reaction is ignited by heating the fuel (commonly using lasers), which is the part that takes a s***ton of energy. Also, the atoms are not "smashed" together, the do fuse into an helium atom, but they are statioonary before the reaction starts.
Seems like you are mixing particle accelerators and fusion reactors. Particle accelerators use electromagnets to accelerate particles, which are then collided at high speeds. Another reason why you may have mixed the two technologies is that particle accelerators, especially LHC, are involved with hydrogen and energy production to some degree. Particle acclerators are used to create antimatter (anti-hydrogen to be exact, sorry for the bad translation, that's what we call it in Finland) By colliding particles together. Antimatter may some day be used as fuel for antimatter reactors, and antimatter annihilation of hydrogen releases over four thousand times more energy than hydrogen fusion.
Try doing a bit more research before you post anything scientifical, since some may actually believe you. Your comment was a combination of guesswork, misinformation and outdated information. If there were any mistakes in my comment, I will gladly fix them if anyone points them out.
Don't try to hit me with science; that's literally the only place where I'll hit back.
And with the nuke-in-a-cube, we don't really need fusion batteries.
Gotta agree. The nuclear reactor and a fusion reactor kind of serve the same function, so there's really no need for a fusion reactor.
I covered this in the description, but since it was lost you'll have to wait a little
Edit:
Apparently there's no need to wait, here's your answer (focus on radioactive byproducts)
Would have voted no but you included a better option. #savetherockpncher
I can only guess what comes next:
More recipe changes and tech upgrades for other tech to use for the seabase, Cyclops, PRAWN or Seamoth. Maybe the heat recharger of the PRAWN or the thermal plants will soon need Precursor knowledge who were masters of thermal power. Maybe the game gets heat shield upgrades to be found at the Precursors. Or the pressure mk3 will be advanced Precursor based.
Right now the Precursor advanced tech is exclusive for:
And a small list of technology systems:
Because screw rocks, that's why....
Read my updated description, it explains why it would be good. Or do you want to go around in your radsuit only? It doesn't have to be overkill. It could be a ocean-friendly alternative to the fusion rector, having the exact same stats but using a non-radioactive fuel while being a little more expensive. If I wanted an overkillingly powerful rector, I would've suggested antimatter. I know the nuclear reactor is a little too powerful; I have six of them in a base that could easily be powered by the ten solar panels attached to it.
Well, that's the point where I didn't understand the devs.
The Aurora has a dark matter drive, meaning that Alterra must know Fusion tech, Antimatter tech and Dark Matter tech, yet the base only gets the Fission tech!
Same with Radiation and the Aurora. Most games offer a radiation level and protection to a certain level. Here we have an all or nothing binary radiation. A simple radiation suit will not only protect you from mild Aurora radiation from afar, but also allow you to seal the dark matter core engine breaches in the should be super radioactive water basin. Ouch! Or should I say WTF? The game should have offered a radiation bar. 100% would mean a health loss of 10% per second. A rad suit would slow down the radiation level rise and the radiation would rise faster the closer you would be to the radiation source. Just like the temperature goes up the closer you get to a heat source. And a special radmeter HUD could display the rad bar like the temperature. The radsuit could be upgradable to be able to work in the core room of the Aurora. Radiation could later become important again, if malfunctioning Precursor sites would cause radiation, which you had to repair, before advancing further.
Even heat isn't done well by the devs. There is no heat absorption inside bases or vehicles as it should be to allow being shielded against heat. No, the reinforced diving suit allows the heat max from 50° to 70°. Instead lowering heat in bases and vehicles about 20° and maybe 50° with additional heat shield tech. Now it's crazy, but you can swim in the hot lava zone with your reinforced suit, but burn to death without one and sitting safe in your PRAWN.
Of course with all that uranium placed in the world and the fission reactor work already done, there is no chance of replacement and another one would cost much dev time, so I assume there is only place for 1 other Precursor based endgame reactor, if we get another at all. I think it's simply to late to call for a fission, antimatter or dark matter reactor.
I would love to have fusion reactors in the game because more options the better, but the things said......
Hitting with science you say, where to start.
1) Ah yes, in fusion two isotopes of hydrogen are needed tritium and deuterium nether of which can be obtained by electrolysis, but they do occur naturally in water and can be centrifuged out.
"The electromagnets in a TOKAMAK (the most common reactor type currently) are there to confine plasma, not to collide atoms together. The fusion reaction is ignited by heating the fuel (commonly using lasers), which is the part that takes a s***ton of energy. Also, the atoms are not "smashed" together, the do fuse into an helium atom, but they are statioonary before the reaction starts."
2) Both these isotopes are positive so they do have to be "smashed together"
3) there was only one i could find any information on that used lasers and it was abandoned because basically lasers don't work very well.
A great source for information on fusion reactors is the web-sight for ITER the newest fusion reactor being built. They are using three different ignition methods. No1 NEUTRAL BEAM INJECTION, this basically fires tritium fuel into the chamber pre filled with deuterium that is going round the chamber already with lots of energy and they collide. there is a bit more to it but hay look it up. No2 ION CYCLOTRON HEATING aka a massive 45 ton microwave emitter. this heats them up so mush that they start smashing into one another. No3 ELECTRON CYCLOTRON HEATING same as no2 but uses electromagnetic radiation.
Another question asked was how the energy was harvested. Most of the energy comes out as neutrons, using a bed of lithium which will absorbs the neutrons getting hot. This can then be piped of and used to boil water and turn turbines. An interesting advantage of using lithium is that some of it will become unstable form the neutron radiation and decay released alpha radiation. The leftover product is.... a isotope of hydrogen which can be used as fuel
This has been fun writing but any way, fusion, interesting.
Interesting though if only we could produce fusion energy in the form of a star which is naturally in that how stars are formed. Gas and dust in space clumps together to form a large mass, this mass at first is only able to gather material due to friction sort of like how you rub a balloon together and they get a static charge. Once said object of dust and gas gets larger it starts to get a gravity field and its own gravity draws in more material. Once enough material is there this material starts to compress and give off heat, once enough material and mass is gained and enough heat is given off we get a nova reaction which starts nuclear fusion which means a star is born.
At the center of stars hydrogen is fused together to form other elements how this happens is heat and pressure. See elements are easy to fuse together when they're extremely hot. This is what we're trying to reproduce, to get that fusing action to happen in a cheap and energy efficient manner so we can reap from the rewards of massive energy that is given off by the fusing of atoms. i could go into a lot more detail but I'd suggest you just go look up all the science babble that's out there on the internet explaining this, those places will probably explain it in more detail and a lot better than I ever could.
Because it fits in any poll (believe me, I've seen it in weirder places)
I knew all that already (except I think that fusion happens in other parts too, not only the core) but what are you trying to point out and how this contradicts with my explanation?
I noticed some of the mistakes myself, I should stop writing anything when I'm tired... But if you know about ITER, why did you make it seem like we had given up with fusion? (Edit: because you are not the same user that's why, oops)
And as I said, no need to play with isotopes here because the nuclear reactor uses just uranium instead of U-235. I know what the required isotopes are. The way fuel is harvested doesn't have to be realistic, because harvesting uranium isn't eiher.
And your first comment you made it seem like it was impossible that the technology could advance in 100 years. It not being used yet and being too big now doesn't mean it couldn't be smaller and practical in the 22nd century, especially when nuclear reactors are so tiny in this game
Edit: I thought you were phantomfinch, I didn't notice you were a different user.
"The way fuel is harvested doesn't have to be realistic"
No but why not, just have a buildable centrifuge, a big one.
Mind you, about the hydrogen being smashed together, the reason I dismissised it is that it makes it seem like they're collided. Am i wrong that no high-speed collision is needed?
All fusion reactions require a collision. In a plasma, the electrons and nuclei are always moving around and bouncing off one another, but not actually touching. When hydrogen plasma is compressed, the nuclei (ie protons) get pushed closer together. Higher temperatures makes them move faster. At high enough temperatures&pressures they collide a lot and stick together, releasing energy. But they are always moving.
Proton + Proton fusion is actually very hard to do, and requires very high temperatures to get decent output.
Deuterium/Tritium fusion reactions are easier to do, but requires rare fuel that must be centrifuged (D) and/or created (T).
As mentioned above, turning the byproducts into useable energy is hard - really really hard - and hasn't been solved yet. Yes, a reactor "made more energy than was put into it", but that energy is in the raw output products, not useable electricity. I'm not sure it is solvable, since the process dumps high-energy neutrons and x-rays/gamma rays into the area around it, which is in most designs a superconducting electromagnet, which has to be kept very cold and very close to the plasma to squeeze it to high enough pressures. I'd be surprised if we can get to even 20% efficiency, which means that a reactor would need to produce 5x as much raw power as the energy put into it, just to *break even*, let alone make marketable electrical energy.
Really, the best place to put fusion reactors is right where they are, at the center of stars. Ironically, it's possible to build a desktop fusion device, but the power output is miniscule compared to the power input required (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor)
Fission reactors, on the other hand, are almost laughably simple. Spin the U to get U235. Form it into rods. Stick it into a giant box with other rods to mediate the reaction. Cover it all in water to keep it from melting and to turn into steam. Use steam to turn a turbine. Really, I think fission reactors could have been built as early as the 1870's. The only hard part would be making reliable, quality centrifuges. Could you imagine steampunk riverboats run by nuclear reactors? That would be epic.
I guess the Cyclop uses power cells since it normally would stay close to a large power source like the Aurora, and a fission reactor isn't necessary, and a fusion reactor (if possible) would be too big.
Polywell seems to be rather compact
Yes the full scale would be bigger, but not gigantic.
Levitating dipole experiment reactor looks small enough to fit into Subnautica room as well
But since we have "dark matter magic yadda yadda nonesense" we should not even care about how real fusion reactor looks like.
If we are having fusion reactor, than we have infinite power source. Compared to other gadgets we have in the game, fusion reactor looks trivial.
PS. realistically speaking, it would be awesome if we switch to mostly fission reactors by 22-nd century so we can get rid of fossil power plants. I wouldn't expect any commercial fusion reactors until the last quarter of this century. I hope I'm wrong.
PPS. It's a shame that tonnes of money are poured into ITER, while there are dozen of other much smaller, cheaper and more promising designs.
Nuclear is a powerhouse that both climate skeptics and environmentalists could agree on, but that's not going to give politicians ammunition to use against each other every election season, now is it? (Spent nuclear waste can actually be re-used in breeder reactors, problem is, we aren't really making any because "err muh gerrrd Chernobyl / 3 Mile Island / Fukushima NIMBY!#!" -- While the only nuclear accident worth mentioning as far as being an absolute catastrophe was Chernobyl, and every. single. one. of those accidents was preventable and a result of operators misunderstanding convoluted operating instructions and / or insufficient design.)
http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361
http://www.threemileisland.org/science/what_went_wrong/
https://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Chernobyl-Accident-And-Its-Consequences
Indeed D + 3He reaction does not produce any neutrons, and most of the energy is carried away by proton thus theoretically direct conversion is possible.
D + D is also good enough, as long as we somehow manage to remove synthesized T from the reactor.