ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly • Hacker News Board

Re: ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly

#141

Post by arcticbull » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 10:54 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #62

andrepd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also a fusion power fanboy but >nuclear power is the only realistic way to solve the looming energy crisis of the 21st century while still maintaining the same standard of living for everyone This is just not true, there's no way you can say this. Solar costs are going down massively. Hydro is dirt cheap already. So renewables can absolutely be part of an energetic transition in the near future, while fusion is a…

Hydro is actually pretty bad in terms of big safety incidents (Banqiao: 171000 dead, Machchu: 5000 dead, South Fork: 2208 dead) and solar/wind have trouble beating nuclear on metrics like death/watt because you need lots of infrastructure per watt. Picture a few large cities with contractors running around every roof tending to solar panels and compare to a few experts at a single nuclear power plant. For the contrac…

Nuclear is the safest energy source in terms of deaths per terawatt hour [1]

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:~:text=....

Re: ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly

#142

Post by devonkim » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 10:57 PM UTC

beachy wrote: post #135

usui wrote: post #7

I am going to need some help on this one as my knowledge on physics is limited: What makes scientists believe that the solution to nuclear fusion power is only a matter of scale? I desperately want nuclear fusion to work because nuclear power is the only realistic way to solve the looming energy crisis of the 21st century while still maintaining the same standard of living for everyone. It's also 500% more important…

If as you say... "nuclear power is the only realistic way to solve the looming energy crisis of the 21st century" because... "most people around the world think that nuclear fission is scary" then we are fucked as a species. Science does not respect people's feelings. If people have scary feelings about energy/climate change/wearing masks to prevent a disease that travels in the air, then those feelings need to be ch…

Given the opposition from our left to nuclear and painting any nuclear proponent as a right-wing science denier trying to defund renewable energy I’m not sure what we can do. Michael Schellenberger has been pilloried by our left despite the decades he put into different approaches before arriving at his nuclear advocacy (and perhaps also deeming for a lot of the climate change doom and gloom as alarmists for the 12 year cliff being cited). But in my view climate change is already here and even if we cut all emissions to zero worldwide we’d be kind of screwed, just not as badly screwed.

Holistic yet science-driven conversation on climate change doesn’t seem possible anymore in public discourse and everyone is angry, which doesn’t make them sound exactly objective either.

Re: ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly

#143

Post by cameldrv » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

jpdus wrote: post #105

jjoonathan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydro is actually pretty bad in terms of big safety incidents (Banqiao: 171000 dead, Machchu: 5000 dead, South Fork: 2208 dead) and solar/wind have trouble beating nuclear on metrics like death/watt because you need lots of infrastructure per watt. Picture a few large cities with contractors running around every roof tending to solar panels and compare to a few experts at a single nuclear power plant. For the contrac…

> Picture a few large cities with contractors running around every roof tending to solar panels and compare to a few experts at a single nuclear power plant. For the contractors-on-roofs, the slip & falls add up even though they'll never get an HBO mini-series. This is a very flawed and short-sighted argument. Averages don't matter when you are talking about fat-tailed/power law risk distributions. Nobody would be op…

I agree that costs are a major problem with nuclear. It seems to be a problem with all large scale construction projects in the past 20-30 years or so.

On the safety tail risks, IMO it's more of a psychological/perception problem than a problem of actual risk. We've had a number of serious accidents in the history of nuclear power, and none of them have led to anything close to the death toll of a single year of running coal plants.

Re: ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly

#144

Post by landryraccoon » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #134

petschge wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simple answer is that the surface only goes up a factor of 4 if you increase the radius by a factor of 2, but the volume goes up by a factor of 8. So the ratio of (energy containing) volume to surface (where energy get's lost) if getting better with increasing size. There is of course much more complicated answers, all the way up to full-device simulations using gyrokinetic codes like Gene or Gkeyll that take mil…

This is the main issue and I don't want to make it any more complicated. But I do want to explain something because people hear arguments between fusion scientists. Within the field no one really doubts that ITER is going to work (there's a few, of course, but the majority don't doubt). The thing they are arguing over is if it is needed. The big reason for ITER is not to generate power but to demonstrate that sustain…

Without giving a strong opinion either way on whether this particular project is a good investment or not :

Science, as an institution imo undervalues good marketing and good PR. For profit enterprises are under no illusion that they can succeed without good marketing and public perception.

If large expensive projects like this are needed to increase public awareness and support for basic scientific research then I am all for them. Society is willing to spend billions on projects that give no tangible return and are all perceptions (for example, sports stadiums) so if some of that instead is spent promoting Science that’s a good thing.

Any actual discoveries in fundamental science that come out would be a bonus too, but getting people excited about research is an end unto itself.

Re: ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly

#145

Post by godelski » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

bobthechef wrote: post #122

andrepd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also a fusion power fanboy but >nuclear power is the only realistic way to solve the looming energy crisis of the 21st century while still maintaining the same standard of living for everyone This is just not true, there's no way you can say this. Solar costs are going down massively. Hydro is dirt cheap already. So renewables can absolutely be part of an energetic transition in the near future, while fusion is a…

Are you factoring in the costs and environmental impact of producing and maintaining storage for solar, the production and maintenance of solar cells and all the other externalized costs and impacts of so-called renewables? From what I understand, there is a great deal of hype around these technologies that doesn’t really stack up and that the renewables industry is rife with shady practices and bogus claims. Persona…

The problem shouldn't be thought about in this way, or maybe I'm misunderstanding your position. There is no single technology that will solve the issue of climate change (and in this case just limiting our conversation to the production of electricity). The landscapes in large geographical areas like the US are not homogeneous. Solar and wind work great in the Southwest, but not as well in the Northeast. Hydro works fantastically in the South, but not in Southwest (yes I'm aware there is hydropower in the SW, that's not the point). There's questions about base load, storage, peak and intermittent demand, transmission, and so on.

So I dislike these conversations because they seem to be framed as Solar/renewables VS nuclear. When really the conversation should be "should nuclear be part of the solution?" I do believe that the answer is yes (because above factors), but the phrasing matters. This is because it leads to the next obvious and more important question: "If yes, how much?" Clearly a fully nuclear grid is not a smart idea, just like a fully solar grid wouldn't be. But the framing matters. It isn't a "OR" debate, it is an "AND" debate.

Re: ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly

#146

Post by godelski » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 11:01 PM UTC

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #120

andrepd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also a fusion power fanboy but >nuclear power is the only realistic way to solve the looming energy crisis of the 21st century while still maintaining the same standard of living for everyone This is just not true, there's no way you can say this. Solar costs are going down massively. Hydro is dirt cheap already. So renewables can absolutely be part of an energetic transition in the near future, while fusion is a…

>>nuclear power is the only realistic way to solve the looming energy crisis of the 21st century while still maintaining the same standard of living for everyone This is also not true if we dealt with the massive overpopulation of the earth instead of acting as its some sort of moral crisis not to stuff as many people as possible onto a planet with finite renewable resources.

This appears to be a problem that is solving itself. Developed countries have birth rates below replacement and more countries are becoming developed (with the same trend happening as those countries develop).

Re: ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly

#147

Post by bsder » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 11:08 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #62

andrepd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also a fusion power fanboy but >nuclear power is the only realistic way to solve the looming energy crisis of the 21st century while still maintaining the same standard of living for everyone This is just not true, there's no way you can say this. Solar costs are going down massively. Hydro is dirt cheap already. So renewables can absolutely be part of an energetic transition in the near future, while fusion is a…

Hydro is actually pretty bad in terms of big safety incidents (Banqiao: 171000 dead, Machchu: 5000 dead, South Fork: 2208 dead) and solar/wind have trouble beating nuclear on metrics like death/watt because you need lots of infrastructure per watt. Picture a few large cities with contractors running around every roof tending to solar panels and compare to a few experts at a single nuclear power plant. For the contrac…

South Fork was never a hydroelectric dam. It was an earthen dam meant to create a lake for the robber barons of the day.

And it was fine, until said robber barons decided not to maintain the dam.

Re: ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly

#148

Post by CarbyAu » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 11:08 PM UTC

Scarblac wrote: post #126

cesarb wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Picture a few large cities with contractors running around every roof tending to solar panels and compare to a few experts at a single nuclear power plant. For the contractors-on-roofs, the slip & falls add up even though they'll never get an HBO mini-series. Most solar power will not be distributed power, but large-scale solar power plants. All large-scale solar power plants I've read about are on the ground, whic…

It gains the space underneath. Flat roofs (of large commercial buildings, for instance) sound like a good place for them. I don't understand why they are put on the ground instead so often.

Yeah, I keep coming back to this "$1 billion idea" of building a solar plant on big shed roofs. Quite literally buy a reasonable sized property in the country(with/near rail) and cover it in sheds.

Once the solar energy output is established then the shed can be used for productive work. Preferably with some level of energy storage but a lot of productive sheds don't need much overnight electricity.

Re: ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly

#149

Post by cameldrv » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 11:09 PM UTC

Scarblac wrote: post #126

cesarb wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Picture a few large cities with contractors running around every roof tending to solar panels and compare to a few experts at a single nuclear power plant. For the contractors-on-roofs, the slip & falls add up even though they'll never get an HBO mini-series. Most solar power will not be distributed power, but large-scale solar power plants. All large-scale solar power plants I've read about are on the ground, whic…

It gains the space underneath. Flat roofs (of large commercial buildings, for instance) sound like a good place for them. I don't understand why they are put on the ground instead so often.

Because it's difficult to install them at scale like that. For example, if you want to do a big solar project, you have to negotiate with the owner of every building you want to put panels on, you have to find a place in every building for inverters, you have to install metering, you may have to upgrade the grid to handle the extra power going out, then you have to have an account and customer service and payments for every building, and if the panels need to be maintained, you have to schedule a time and send out a crew.

Then you also can't practically do certain things like install trackers, because they break more often and it's too expensive to maintain them if you have to have a crew go out there instead of your on-site maintenance people just go over to the broken tracker/panel.

Overall the costs of rooftop solar are just more expensive than a central solar farm. Plus, you can site the solar farm where there is better sunlight and land is cheap.

Ultimately this is the problem I have with solar: It puts an effective cap on our energy use. Solar will never be more than 100% efficient, and there is only so much land that it is reasonable to use, so if we say, wanted to expand our worldwide energy usage 10x, it's not really feasible.

Re: ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly

#150

Post by bassman9000 » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 11:10 PM UTC

jpdus wrote: post #105

jjoonathan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydro is actually pretty bad in terms of big safety incidents (Banqiao: 171000 dead, Machchu: 5000 dead, South Fork: 2208 dead) and solar/wind have trouble beating nuclear on metrics like death/watt because you need lots of infrastructure per watt. Picture a few large cities with contractors running around every roof tending to solar panels and compare to a few experts at a single nuclear power plant. For the contrac…

> Picture a few large cities with contractors running around every roof tending to solar panels and compare to a few experts at a single nuclear power plant. For the contractors-on-roofs, the slip & falls add up even though they'll never get an HBO mini-series. This is a very flawed and short-sighted argument. Averages don't matter when you are talking about fat-tailed/power law risk distributions. Nobody would be op…

Averages don't matter when you are talking about fat-tailed/power law risk distributions. Nobody would be opposed to PVs on roofs in their neighborhood b/c some construction workers fall to death every year - this risk is well calculable. But (almost) everyone would be opposed to a fission plant or nuclear waste facility next door - and rightfully so.

How is this even an argument.

Nuclear risks are also calculable. The regulatory hurdles nuclear has to go trough, even for testing reactors, to meet risk criteria (among others), are enormous. The vast majority of nuclear, as exposed by deaths/TWh generated, is extremely safe. Flying vs driving argument.

Take the worst nuclear catastrophe. Take the wildest overestimation in deaths. It's still less than most other sources, including renewables.

No, in practice humanity never figured out how to safely and efficiently use this power source

What? France. All their active residues probably fit in one or two football fields. 3th/4th Gen will consume them, making medical radioisotopes in the process. You can't contain megatons of CO2 this easily.

In the meantime, air pollution kills in the range of 6-8 million people a year. German support for keeping nuclear grows

https://twitter.com/hh_mikawe/status/1284770806090825728?s=2...