Jake Mckeegan

Energy is… mass. Mass is… energy. There is no essential distinction. They are separated by nothing but the speed of light squared in the famous equation E = MC^2. So, how do we harness this for energy? There are two different ways to do this. One is nuclear fusion, and the other is antimatter. Let’s explore these ideas.

Nuclear fusion is when you fuse two atoms together. In doing so, it releases energy. It is definitely at least part of the future of energy. All you need to do is combine some atoms, and boom! You get energy. The only problem is its speed and storage capabilities. You can’t store these massive amounts of energy very easily, and it isn’t as fast as antimatter is (plus it doesn’t produce as much energy). But, there is an alternative.

Antimatter is like normal matter, but with the exact opposite charge. When antimatter and normal matter come into contact, they explode and release all the energy inside of the atoms. Antimatter is incredibly powerful. One gram of antimatter is like a nuclear bomb! This would be great for energy production, and it happens incredibly quickly. Still, it has its drawbacks. First is that it is incredibly hard to store. Sure, you could capture it in a magnetic field and store it that way, but nobody has ever really made a serious attempt at doing this. The second drawback is its rarity, it is so incredibly expensive to make. At the moment, antimatter wouldn’t be financially viable to produce it mainly for energy uses. Still, if you have a rocket and you need high energy density material that you need to make energy out of on the spot, antimatter is your material.

All in all, nuclear fusion and antimatter are two different approaches to harness the immense energy released due to the equation E = MC^2. While Nuclear Fusion is the future of commercial energy, antimatter could be a fast, energy dense material that could be used to produce energy in rockets or in space. Overall, both of these are great options, but which one is better?