Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China’s ‘Artificial Sun’ achieves fusion breakthrough

en.people.cn

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 235 posts

Re: China’s ‘Artificial Sun’ achieves fusion breakthrough

#111

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

speleding wrote: post #80
fooker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a few decades, when most of the new inventions will start coming from China, this attitude is going to be very difficult to maintain.

Perhaps, but catching up is easier than surpassing. We've seen the same with Japan where trajectories were set to overtake the West two decades ago (on science, economy, etc), but when they reached parity the progress slowed down considerably.

The difference is that China has made epic investments in education and training, while the US, the UK, and some other Western countries have worked hard to make education and training more expensive and less accessible.

There's also been a hollowing out of independent inquiry in Western academia, and its replacement by a for-profit-only paper production sweatshop, with universities becoming corporations that have no respect for their employees and only care about short term profitability.

I think we're probably somewhere close to parity now. Both systems are broken in their different ways, but the bottom line for investors is that the Chinese system has a lot more potential to grow than the system in the US.

Trump is likely to make things worse rather than better. I suspect he literally doesn't understand what scientific and technological research is, never mind appreciate why it needs to be supported.

Re: China’s ‘Artificial Sun’ achieves fusion breakthrough

#112

Post by mtgx »

sonium wrote: post #92
kybernetikos wrote: post #84

I would love to see a huge effort towards fusion, on the same (or even greater) scale as the Manhattan project or the Apollo program. I had been disappointed in the way that fusion always seemed to be 30 years away no matter how many years went past, but I just assumed that that was because the science was hard and just the way it had to be. https://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Article…

This might sound a bit like a buzz-kill, but I don't think fusion power is necessarily competitively cheap. I think it will be comparable to nuclear power with a ~ 10 times higher capital investment to build a fusion-plant. Already now solar is said to be cheaper then nuclear. But nevertheless humanity should explore fusion since it is more or less the only significant power source not (indrectly) depending on the su…

I don't think fusion power will be "too cheap to meter" just like fission wasn't anywhere near that. However, I do think we'll be able to make fusion reactors that are much more compact, like what Lockheed Martin is trying to build. I also think we'll achieve significantly more power/volume, which will be very useful for space ships in the future.

Re: China’s ‘Artificial Sun’ achieves fusion breakthrough

#113

Post by kuschku »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #111
speleding wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but catching up is easier than surpassing. We've seen the same with Japan where trajectories were set to overtake the West two decades ago (on science, economy, etc), but when they reached parity the progress slowed down considerably.

The difference is that China has made epic investments in education and training, while the US, the UK, and some other Western countries have worked hard to make education and training more expensive and less accessible. There's also been a hollowing out of independent inquiry in Western academia, and its replacement by a for-profit-only paper production sweatshop, with universities becoming corporations that have no…

Interestingly, the only western power actually still doing something is Germany, which just started a program to invest another 200 billion EUR into education over the next few years.

We might see a return of Germany surpassing the US in science output again.

Re: China’s ‘Artificial Sun’ achieves fusion breakthrough

#115

Post by Glauc »

kybernetikos wrote: post #90
simonh wrote: post #88

The Manhattan Project cost about $26bn in 2016 dollars, while ITER is expected to cost over $20bn by the time it's done. The problem with trying to solve something like this by throwing money at it too early, is what if the technological approach chosen doesn't work out? The more money you put into it, the more you would waste. Right now there at least half a dozen possible ways Fusion could be achieved commercially,…

The Manhattan project took place over about 5 years. The US has been investigating fusion since at least the 40s. ITER is also an international effort, funded by 36 countries, not just the US. The US also withdrew from funding it for 6 years in 2000 so I don't know what its total involvement will be, but so far it will be well short of its involvement in the Manhattan project. I agree that the money that should be in…

ICF is also funded, though it has its fair share of problems.

Re: China’s ‘Artificial Sun’ achieves fusion breakthrough

#116

Post by Jedd »

sonium wrote: post #92
kybernetikos wrote: post #84

I would love to see a huge effort towards fusion, on the same (or even greater) scale as the Manhattan project or the Apollo program. I had been disappointed in the way that fusion always seemed to be 30 years away no matter how many years went past, but I just assumed that that was because the science was hard and just the way it had to be. https://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Article…

This might sound a bit like a buzz-kill, but I don't think fusion power is necessarily competitively cheap. I think it will be comparable to nuclear power with a ~ 10 times higher capital investment to build a fusion-plant. Already now solar is said to be cheaper then nuclear. But nevertheless humanity should explore fusion since it is more or less the only significant power source not (indrectly) depending on the su…

  > This might sound a bit like a buzz-kill, but I don't think fusion power is necessarily competitively cheap.
Buzz kill on hn is fine so long as you back up your opinions with rational arguments and / or citations rather than simply sharing more of your opinions as ersatz supporting evidence.

  > I think it will be comparable to nuclear power with a ~ 10 times higher capital investment to build a fusion-plant.
This is my biggest problem when talking with people about nuclear -- the conflation of fission and fusion. Saying fusion compared to nuclear is like saying diesel compared to internal combustion engine.

  > Already now solar is said to be cheaper then nuclear.
And solar means multiple things too - PVC and thermal, for starters. But who says this, and why, and [!?] where?

  > But nevertheless humanity should explore fusion since it is more or less the only significant power source not (indrectly) depending on the sun.
Fission fits this bill too, but obviously is less desirable.

  > As far as I can see the funding of fusion research is at about the same level as particle physics which definilty does not provide any other than philosophical progress.
There's no benefit from particle physics other than philosophical?

Goodness.

Re: China’s ‘Artificial Sun’ achieves fusion breakthrough

#117

Post by adrianN »

arethuza wrote: post #99
sonium wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might sound a bit like a buzz-kill, but I don't think fusion power is necessarily competitively cheap. I think it will be comparable to nuclear power with a ~ 10 times higher capital investment to build a fusion-plant. Already now solar is said to be cheaper then nuclear. But nevertheless humanity should explore fusion since it is more or less the only significant power source not (indrectly) depending on the su…

I agree - always been a bit mystified when fusion power is described as "cheap", fuel isn't a big component of the cost of fission power plants so even if the fuel is low cost it won't save you that much money. [I guess decommissioning costs might be lower but are they actually included in the costs of operating normal nuclear plants?]

I bet regulatory compliance is a big chunk of the costs. Those regulations are bound to be much more strict for a fission plant that can potentially blow up and contaminate a large area compared to a fusion plant with a safe failure mode by default (the plasma just shuts down).

Re: China’s ‘Artificial Sun’ achieves fusion breakthrough

#118

Post by drjesusphd »

marshray wrote: post #30
jimmaswell wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "nuclear waste is.. nuclear waste" bit is a thoughtless, easy jab that plays on the unfounded fear of nuclear energy. Safely stored nuclear waste isn't a danger to anybody. I also don't like how the rest of the video continues to try to put nuclear in a bad light, going as far as implying it's not "clean energy".

> Safely stored nuclear waste isn't a danger to anybody. You can not claim that without a credible plan to store it until it's no longer hot, however long that takes.

About 12 years for the isotopes produced by neutron activation in fusion reactors.

Re: China’s ‘Artificial Sun’ achieves fusion breakthrough

#119

Post by Baeocystin »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #110
andygates wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very high cost of fission has a lot to do with how nasty, awkward, long-lasting and expensive the fuel and waste are. We really won't know until we try building a power plant.

Fusion produces energetic neutrons, and energetic neutrons are a very good way to make things radioactive. So all the popular approaches create waste that is more radioactive than fission waste, and probably comparable in volume. The only up side is that the decay products have a shorter half life. So the waste will only be a problem for a century or so, instead of for millennia. This may be better than fission, but…

Uranium mining is a nasty business. Deuterium concentration is, by comparison, just a bunch of water-filled centrifuges. Surly that would make a large difference all on its own, no?

Re: China’s ‘Artificial Sun’ achieves fusion breakthrough

#120

Post by Jedd »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #110
andygates wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very high cost of fission has a lot to do with how nasty, awkward, long-lasting and expensive the fuel and waste are. We really won't know until we try building a power plant.

Fusion produces energetic neutrons, and energetic neutrons are a very good way to make things radioactive. So all the popular approaches create waste that is more radioactive than fission waste, and probably comparable in volume. The only up side is that the decay products have a shorter half life. So the waste will only be a problem for a century or so, instead of for millennia. This may be better than fission, but…

  > The only up side is that the decay products have a shorter half life. So the waste will only be a problem for a century or so, instead of for millennia.
This sounds like a tremendous underestimation of the problem - handling waste.

We have people who live 'for a century or so' but we don't even have languages (now!) that have lasted a millenia.

Post reply on HN