Why is nuclear fusion so hard? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#21

Post by DennisP » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 3:39 PM UTC

kjar wrote: post #3

For most of my life fusion has been teased but not delivered. fission has been pimped for decades yet cannot get private funding, or build reactors in a decade, or provide solutions for the waste. Yet still the industries persist with their propaganda while renewables beat them in cost and time to operation. If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately.

Unless you have a very cheap and very scalable storage solution, that would be a mistake.

France took their grid from zero nuclear to 80% nuclear in two decades. We don't have a comparable example for wind/solar.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#22

Post by martythemaniak » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 3:40 PM UTC

kjar wrote: post #3

For most of my life fusion has been teased but not delivered. fission has been pimped for decades yet cannot get private funding, or build reactors in a decade, or provide solutions for the waste. Yet still the industries persist with their propaganda while renewables beat them in cost and time to operation. If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately.

I don't think you're fully aware of the facts (not "propaganda") of nuclear. Old fission reactors are the silent workhorses of our civilization and without them we'd be a much much deeper trouble than we already are. Had previous administrations invested more in fission, climate change would be a much smaller and more manageable problem today.

Nuclear has other advantages over solar as well, such as not requiring the vast amounts of land solar does, sometime which will probably cause more and more problems as the industry grows.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#23

Post by azeotropic » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 3:41 PM UTC

intralizee wrote: post #12

kjar wrote: post #3

For most of my life fusion has been teased but not delivered. fission has been pimped for decades yet cannot get private funding, or build reactors in a decade, or provide solutions for the waste. Yet still the industries persist with their propaganda while renewables beat them in cost and time to operation. If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately.

The majority of people in power will operate by the ends justify the means. I've always wondered if this is true, why humanity will not readjust population numbers and where the renewables actually can sustain the population. Seems better for increasing the length in time for humanity to exist on the planet and come up with a solution to energy where the population can progress to infinite. Compared to the alternativ…

Brilliant solution! Since you thought of it, perhaps you'd like to be 'readjusted' first?

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#24

Post by openloop » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 3:45 PM UTC

Why is letting go of religion so hards. Who knows.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#25

Post by sudhirj » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 3:45 PM UTC

Try making a compressed, spherical ball of water using your two hands.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#26

Post by Retric » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 3:47 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #21

kjar wrote: post #3

For most of my life fusion has been teased but not delivered. fission has been pimped for decades yet cannot get private funding, or build reactors in a decade, or provide solutions for the waste. Yet still the industries persist with their propaganda while renewables beat them in cost and time to operation. If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately.

Unless you have a very cheap and very scalable storage solution, that would be a mistake. France took their grid from zero nuclear to 80% nuclear in two decades. We don't have a comparable example for wind/solar.

That’s a function of how recently solar and wind became cheap. China has a 31x increase in wind power over the last 10 years. The next 10 will be very interesting assuming prices continue to fall. When having a 30% oversupply of wind / solar still costs less than any alternative and they are only gettting cheaper eventually noting else comes close.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#27

Post by intralizee » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 3:50 PM UTC

azeotropic wrote: post #23

intralizee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of people in power will operate by the ends justify the means. I've always wondered if this is true, why humanity will not readjust population numbers and where the renewables actually can sustain the population. Seems better for increasing the length in time for humanity to exist on the planet and come up with a solution to energy where the population can progress to infinite. Compared to the alternativ…

Brilliant solution! Since you thought of it, perhaps you'd like to be 'readjusted' first?

Sure, legalize suicide and make it possible to receive in a humane medical setting.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#28

Post by Michaelanjello » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 3:51 PM UTC

sctb wrote: post #13

Michaelanjello wrote: post #7

Delete.

Please stop trolling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I wasn't, but you should. Calling me a middlebrow goes to show you don't know what you don't know.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#29

Post by ufmace » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 3:52 PM UTC

assblaster wrote: post #6

josefx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately. To make those a reasonable base you need to add enough storage to keep everything working even when your current weather does not meet the energy demand. I think setting up that storage is currently going to be the biggest cost factor.

When you factor in storage costs, how do solar and wind compare to alternatives?

We don't know, because we've never built grid-scale energy storage.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#30

Post by epistasis » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 4:00 PM UTC

assblaster wrote: post #6

josefx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I managed the funds I'd cut nuclear and redirect to wind and solar immediately. To make those a reasonable base you need to add enough storage to keep everything working even when your current weather does not meet the energy demand. I think setting up that storage is currently going to be the biggest cost factor.

When you factor in storage costs, how do solar and wind compare to alternatives?

Currently, solar that has 3-4 hours of output at 50% of peak primary solar outbut, is about $35-$40/MWh in Colorado, Nevada, and I think even Indiana had bids in that ballpark. This is between 1/5 to 1/2 the cost of nuclear, depending on who you believe for nuclear's costs. Storing a MWh probably costs around $80-$150 currently.

Why so little storage? It's not really needed at the scale of projects that are being planned, and storage gets cheaper every year.

So let's say we could start building a nuclear plant and get it done in 10 years (which is highly speculative, but let's give nuclear the benefit of the doubt). What are the costs going to be 10 years from now? Or more importantly, what are costs going to be 30 years from now? Because the storage lasts 10-15 years, so you get to replace it with cheaper tech at that point, whereas with nuclear you've locked in your costs for the next 60 years.

This is why no sane entity wants to build nuclear, unless they are ideologically motivated. There are some nuclear startups that may make nuclear cheaper, and less risky to build, but they are still startups without functioning prototypes or manufacturing facilities. By the time they start production, the utility will be ready to replace any batteries that get deployed on the grid today, so one may as well start deploying wind/solar + storage. And add more time of use rate plans so that energy is used efficiently.