<\/p>\n
Background<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n So, what\u2019s fusion? Well it\u2019s something kind of like what happens in nuclear reactors now, except not because it\u2019s the exact opposite. Nuclear reactors basically take really large nuclei \u2013Uranium or Plutonium \u2013 and smack them together until they break and make two smaller (but still super radioactive) parts. That\u2019s cool right, energy with no GHG?! I mean we\u2019ve got these elements we put in water, they make the water boil, and that can make electricity with no GHG \u2013 sweet! Well, not really because a ton of radioactive stuff results from that reaction, it\u2019s super unstable, and sometimes a Homer Simpson enters the equation and the plant breaks and poisons everything around it. Epic fail.<\/p>\n Alright, fission kinda sucks; so fusion? Instead of taking two really big elements and smashing them together until they explosively break up Kardashian style, we take two really small elements and basically force them to hug. Except plot twist they really, really don\u2019t want to hug. So to make them hug we have to heat the elements to a temperature which makes them phase transition to a plasma and that only happens under similar heat \/ pressure as is felt in the center of the sun \u2013 bummer. So basically we have to create a sun in some lab. But you might be thinking \u201chey, that sounds like kind of a fire hazard\u201d and yep, you\u2019re right because we don\u2019t know of a matter that can contain that kind of heat and pressure also it takes A LOT more energy than you get in your standard Easy Bake Oven to heat stuff up like that and the fusion doesn\u2019t last long enough to generate more energy than it takes to heat. But if we can make it last, we\u2019d\u00a0<\/span>yield ~3-4x the amount of energy we put into this wonky elemental hugging booth. Also did I mention that the input could be water and the output would be limitless energy with no GHG and no radioactive material!<\/p>\n Business Context<\/strong><\/p>\n As the pressure increases to find a non-fossil fuel source of electricity \u2013 which accounts for about a quarter\u00a0<\/span>(6)\u00a0<\/span>of GHG released today \u2013 so do the economic incentives to find this source. Enter the government and a bunch of really rich dudes from Silicon Valley like Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos and Paul Allen\u00a0<\/span><\/span>(1). So, great, a bunch of billionaires and the government decided this is probably worth figuring out. The issue is that it turns out this is a REALLY hard problem to solve. To quote Elon Musk \u201cit\u2019s a very, very difficult technical problem, one of the most difficult technical problems that humanity will ever try to solve. But if we solve it, we will have \u2018energy forever\u2019.\u201d(1)<\/span><\/p>\n So, who\u2019s working on this now? Well there are three notable companies: Helion Energy, Tri Alpha Energy and General Fusion. All of these companies are establishing \u2013 or attempting to establish \u2013 a sustainable business model (read: trying to make hydrogen hug without burning their office down). They\u2019re potentially founding an unprecedented business model in terms of profitability too since they’d generate 3-4x the energy inputted using just water as a base (remember 2\/3 of earth is water). So, to get back to the prompt since I\u2019ll probably be graded on this. How is their business model affected? They\u2019re creating a whole new business model which is at least in part inspired by the pressures of climate change. Imagine if you came up with a technology so great that you could input a bottle of water and output enough energy to power NYC?! That\u2019d be pretty awesome and actually that\u2019s roughly on the scale of what we\u2019re talking about here. How are these companies going to be affected by climate change\u2019s physical manifestation? Once Miami is under water I\u2019m pretty sure even Pitbull will be investing in a source of energy that won\u2019t trash the planet. As pressure increases to cut GHG so will funding to find new sources of energy. How about threats? Well this technology could totally flounder or take 50 years to complete which wouldn\u2019t do much good since we might all be living on what used to be the polar icecaps by then. What else should be done? Let\u2019s fund research! MIT\u2019s reactor just set the world record for pressure achieved in a reactor (woo) and that same day was shut down for lack of funding (womp womp)\u00a0<\/span>(4)<\/span>.<\/p>\n Of all companies I\u2019d posit that these are going to be most affected by climate change and vice versa. Because, if successful they\u2019ll put a near full stop to GHG created in the production of electricity which is the largest contributor to GHG and probably supplant traditional electricity suppliers in an incredibly profitable way. When\u2019s this happening? General Fusion says six years\u00a0<\/span>(1)<\/span>; Uncle Sam says 1-2 decades \u2013 so stay tuned!<\/p>\n Word Count: 800<\/p>\n Sources:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Instead of reading your tenth blog about Tesla, let\u2019s talk about some companies that have the potential to completely change the game in energy and create a pretty killer business in the process. Let\u2019s talk about nuclear fusion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2211,"featured_media":11473,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","categories":[],"class_list":["post-10959","hck-submission","type-hck-submission","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"connected_submission_link":"https:\/\/d3.harvard.edu\/platform-rctom\/assignment\/climate-change-challenge-2016\/","yoast_head":"\n\n