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

Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

blog.sigfpe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 182 posts

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#31

Post by FlyMoreRockets »

Retric wrote: post #19
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.

Base load power is not a useful feature. To follow the demand curve you generally what to turn massive amounts of production off at specific points in the day, base load is simply what you keep running during those periods. Nuclear power plants for example where known to be hard to throttle which was a significant design issue. Historically, the tradeoff is worth it as the cost per kWh was less, but again not a usefu…

I used to be a reactor operator and never saw any evidence they were hard to throttle. That's why they are used for warship propulsion: loads in battle are not predictable by their nature, what with changes in course, catapult launches, etc.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#32

Post by oblio »

intralizee wrote: post #27
azeotropic wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you need it to be legalized? After all, it's a one way trip, you don't care about being convicted post mortem, do you? :)

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#33

Post by Michaelanjello »

loblollyboy wrote: post #10
Michaelanjello wrote: post #7

Delete.

Links to whatever those are? I googled, couldn’t find

I detest the overall HN commenting community. You may be an exception. They're always downvoting and shadowbanning. I am reluctant to share much useful info here.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#34

Post by sanxiyn »

adrianmonk wrote: post #16
kjar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my point in short is we don't have time for this right now. we need to de-carbonize our energy system a decade ago. this tech. is not operational and will take a decade to be so - that's not time we have to avoid catastrophic climate destabilization.

If the objection is that nuclear can't be built quickly enough, then the renewable options need to be judged against that same standard. Suppose everyone in the world already agreed to go a hundred percent renewable in 10 years. Effectively replacing the entire world's energy infrastructure is going to take a huge amount of raw materials and production capacity. Is there going to be enough? It's possible the answer i…

> There will need to be a lot of battery storage, which means there needs to be a lot of lithium.

No, if we actually want this, pumped-storage hydroelectricity is a proven solution that works. There is actually no uncertainty regarding energy storage: we can do it.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#36

Post by intralizee »

oblio wrote: post #32
intralizee wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why do you need it to be legalized? After all, it's a one way trip, you don't care about being convicted post mortem, do you? :)

Statistically failure rate is high and where the very real outcome of brain damage is possible. Wouldn’t want to be stuck in a state causing more resources spent and unable to attempt the act again. I am seeking it medically for the record and I assume most people are just irrational against letting people die which is why this world is in jeopardy anyway.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#37

Post by Tade0 »

adrianmonk wrote: post #16
kjar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my point in short is we don't have time for this right now. we need to de-carbonize our energy system a decade ago. this tech. is not operational and will take a decade to be so - that's not time we have to avoid catastrophic climate destabilization.

If the objection is that nuclear can't be built quickly enough, then the renewable options need to be judged against that same standard. Suppose everyone in the world already agreed to go a hundred percent renewable in 10 years. Effectively replacing the entire world's energy infrastructure is going to take a huge amount of raw materials and production capacity. Is there going to be enough? It's possible the answer i…

Are there enough lithium mines?

No need to - there are 230 billion tonnes of the stuff in seawater.

Just one percent of that is enough to create 25,000TWh worth of li-ion batteries - that's roughly the amount of electricity produced by the world annually.

Also other chemistries like zinc-air are gaining traction and serve as a good, cheaper alternative.

Re: Why is nuclear fusion so hard?

#38

Post by candiodari »

martythemaniak wrote: post #22
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…

Yeah this is something people keep forgetting. The reason fossil fuels have such an impact is because the industry is happening at such a scale.

Solar and wind are working at miniscule size ... and ... "no" impact (well, wind clearly has impact already, but ... let's forget that).

Well actually, solar does have an impact. In Spain there's a couple large wind farms I visited and ... not that it should surprise anyone but there's nothing growing near or below them. Below the panels there's dried out, sad grass. Now I guess this is what you'd expect, but still. It kinda sucks.

What happens when we have regions in every country the size of a decent state/province essentially covered in solar panels ? Habitat destruction, of course (even in deserts).

But for now, when we're talking a decent number of football fields, we can all happily pretend no impact.

Truth is, for the amount of power it produces, nuclear fission is not just amazingly, but almost absurdly low impact (meaning you'd get laughed out of the room if you predicted it in 1950). Far LOWER, not higher than solar, in impact, in danger (in lives lost / KwH, even if you include nuclear bombs), in place occupied, in nature poisoned/displaced ("environmental impact"), ...

Fusion can do better. That makes it worth pursuing.

Post reply on HN