Monday, July 15, 2013

Why We're Stuck With Old School Tech



As you may, or may not, know I am a science fiction author.  Authors tend to write what they know, but occasionally they have to conduct research for topics that they aren’t as familiar with but still influence their work.  In conducting research for an upcoming novel, I had to consult with someone more versed in nuclear physics than me.  That person was my uncle, who has a PhD in that discipline.  During the course of our discussion, it was decided that the tech I was proposing (although still theoretical) was simply a refinement of an existing and outdated technology.  He asked why I would be considering putting it in my novel.  I replied: “because it works.”  We continued to discuss the idea of antiquated technology used in science fiction, but it got me thinking about why we didn’t progress faster.  Later, I saw the movie “Pacific Rim”, and saw that they were using the same technology as a plot device.

Why, with all the advances in technology, do we still cling to outdated and clearly inferior technology?  For example, almost all automobiles manufactured today use a combustion engine for power.  Oh sure, there are all electric cars made by Tesla, Nissan, Toyota, Chevy, Ford, and others but they aren’t widely used.  The technology for the internal combustion engine has been around (in various forms) for nearly 300+ years. 

What about nuclear power, and other power generating technologies?   Nuclear reactors, coal, and natural gas power plants all use steam turbines to generate electricity.  Steam, wind, and waterpower have been used for thousands of years (around 1st century AD).  The only ‘tech’ that changed was the method used to turbine.  There is so much energy lost in this process that it’s almost laughable that it’s our primary conversion method for energy.  The best we can get from converting thermal energy to electricity is a paltry 58%.  Hydroelectric power is far more efficient (98%), but isn’t useful in powering spacecraft.

So, instead of developing more efficient means of energy production, we try to shoehorn the current technology into better efficiency.  It’s like trying to cram the ugly step—sister’s foot into the glass slipper, it doesn’t quite work.  The question of why we haven’t been able to progress beyond our current technology comes down to practicality.

Fusion would be great, and holds a lot of potential, but there are steep engineering obstacles to getting our money’s worth out of the most basic equation E=M .  That simple formula tells us that the amount of energy of 1 kg of matter would be 9x  joules.  Unfortunately, our most efficient nuclear reactor is only 34% efficient, but these are fission reactors, and NOT fusion reactors.  The problem with fusion is that it currently takes a tremendous amount of energy to begin the process, we can’t sustain it, and it would prove difficult to maintain.  Other ideas have gravitated to anti—matter reactors, but all anti—matter we have created is almost instantly destroyed when it encounters regular matter.

Our inability to move on is due to our inability to overcome the engineering obstacles in converting the latent power that exists in every atom into something we can use to power everything we need it to power.  That may seem dismal on its face, but I think of it as an opportunity.  As we continue to refine current/ancient technologies to make them more efficient, we solve problems that help us make technologies that are more advanced possible.

If you look at our engines and generating technologies, you will notice a stark improvement over previous generations.  When I first entered college, the most fuel-efficient production car was lucky to get 27 mpg.  Today the most efficient car is an electric that gets 121 empg.  A lot of small engineering problems had to be solved in different disciplines in order to obtain that level of performance, and there are more to be solved before it becomes widely viable.

No comments: