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

U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 240 posts

Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant

#21

Post by howardr »

gameshot911 wrote: post #17

2040s? 20+ years from now!?! Too fuckin slow!! For all Musk's faults, he recognizes such timelines are untenable, and pushes people to do the 'impossible'.

I read a letter in the Financial Times over the weekend...

> Forty years ago, when studying for my engineering degree, I learnt a rule of thumb that said that nuclear fusion is always 20 years away. I was therefore reassured by the date given in the report (“Sites sought for Step change in energy supply”, December 3) for the Step nuclear fusion plant — 2040.

(Edit: Unfortunately it’s behind a paywall but will include the link anyway https://www.ft.com/content/e5af6548-a3a9-451f-8f92-268679d5d...)

Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant

#22

Post by [deleted] »

tomrod wrote: post #13
waiseristy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still think weather does not allow this triplet to cover all scenarios. There are times in the PNW where you won't see the sun for 2-3 weeks, long enough to deplete almost any grid storage solution

While not due to cloud coverage, this is why Texas runs super large transmission lines from West Texas wind farms to Houston oil refineries.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant

#23

Post by baldeagle »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #16
tomrod wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While not due to cloud coverage, this is why Texas runs super large transmission lines from West Texas wind farms to Houston oil refineries.

Can you elaborate on this point please? I don't understand the analogy.

Refining oil takes power... and if you use (cheap) clean power to convert the rough hydrocarbons into refined gas fuel or other higher end hydrocarbons... you're making it pollute less (viewed from the lifecycle) and cheaper. So in a way, you're storing excess solar power in the gas, via reducing the need to burn gas to make more gas.

Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant

#24

Post by baking »

wcarss wrote: post #12

Serious question: how does an article like this get written without mentioning SPARC[1] once? They're hardly secretive, they're MIT's people, they're moving on a plan to get results in ~5 years, and they're talking about the same kind of things: tokamaks, better computer modeling, and easier to make higher temperature superconductors for stronger magnets. I'm just a layperson, I only know pop science level stuff here…

Because SPARC is already happening. This is planning for research in areas that the next reactor will need including a neutron source to test materials and a blanket test facility.

See Bob Mumgaard's slides from last year's annual meeting of Fusion Power Associates where he outlines the research for technologies needed for by all the approaches to fusion power.

http://www.firefusionpower.org/FPA19_Speed_Mumgaard_CFS.pdf

Quote from the last slide: "It would be a travesty for somebody to have a concept that works and have fusion stall because we, CHOSE not to prioritize the parts that help everybody."

This is where government funded research helps the emerging fusion power industry.

Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant

#25

Post by kortilla »

free_rms wrote: post #20
wcarss wrote: post #12

Serious question: how does an article like this get written without mentioning SPARC[1] once? They're hardly secretive, they're MIT's people, they're moving on a plan to get results in ~5 years, and they're talking about the same kind of things: tokamaks, better computer modeling, and easier to make higher temperature superconductors for stronger magnets. I'm just a layperson, I only know pop science level stuff here…

God I wish we could Manhattan Project this shit. I'm a layman too but I get the impression that the theory is basically there and we just need to figure out the engineering. That's a solvable problem with lots of money and lots of teams. Are we going to wait until the sea level rises 20 feet and then say, geez, compared to the costs this imposed, fusion would have been easy?

Fission is a solved engineering and science problem though and we’re still blocking it to let the sea levels rise. Point being, nobody actually cares about climate change enough to make hard decisions so a Manhattan style project is highly unlikely.

Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant

#26

Post by patmorgan23 »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #16
tomrod wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While not due to cloud coverage, this is why Texas runs super large transmission lines from West Texas wind farms to Houston oil refineries.

Can you elaborate on this point please? I don't understand the analogy.

Generation doesn't have to be near consumption. If weather is bad in the PNW power can be move to it from other parts of the country. Texas does this with massive transmission lines that where built crisscrossing the state in the late 90's and 00's. These transmission lines allowed for a massive expansion in wind and solar without large subsidies because the electricity could be moved to wear it was needed and sold on the open market (the state operates an real time auction market to balance to help balance supply and demand). Today the state has more wind and solar than coal. Something like 30-40% of the states electricity comes from renewables.

Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant

#27

Post by adrianmonk »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #16
tomrod wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While not due to cloud coverage, this is why Texas runs super large transmission lines from West Texas wind farms to Houston oil refineries.

Can you elaborate on this point please? I don't understand the analogy.

West Texas has a lot of empty desert or near-desert land, not a lot of people, and not a lot of industry. But it does have a lot of wind.

Houston is a big city. Its metro population is about 7 million. And Houston has a lot of industry, probably the most industrial of the major Texas cities.

Texas is big, and depending on what part of West Texas you're talking about, Houston is pretty far away from it. For example, it's a 350 mile (~550km) drive between Abilene and Houston, and it's a 600 mile (~950km) drive between Amarillo and Houston.

After lots of wind generation got built in West Texas, they had to add more power lines to bring the power to the more populated part of the state. And they did, and it worked.

Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant

#28

Post by Lammy »

free_rms wrote: post #20
wcarss wrote: post #12

Serious question: how does an article like this get written without mentioning SPARC[1] once? They're hardly secretive, they're MIT's people, they're moving on a plan to get results in ~5 years, and they're talking about the same kind of things: tokamaks, better computer modeling, and easier to make higher temperature superconductors for stronger magnets. I'm just a layperson, I only know pop science level stuff here…

God I wish we could Manhattan Project this shit. I'm a layman too but I get the impression that the theory is basically there and we just need to figure out the engineering. That's a solvable problem with lots of money and lots of teams. Are we going to wait until the sea level rises 20 feet and then say, geez, compared to the costs this imposed, fusion would have been easy?

> Are we going to wait until the sea level rises 20 feet and then say, geez, compared to the costs this imposed, fusion would have been easy?

Well, yeah, the US spent the last 50 years (e.g. "WTF Happened In 1971?"[0]) widening the income gap and doing everything possible to keep their "undesirable" ethnic groups as poor as possible. When the bottom falls out, the only people left standing will be the people who would have been able to use the nice water fountain back when America was "Great", and anyone suffering will get individual blame for their lack of individual bootstraps.

e: In case I was unclear, I think this is a bad thing :)

[0]: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/, but I would ask "WTF Happened in 1968?" instead.

Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant

#29

Post by orthecreedence »

kortilla wrote: post #25
free_rms wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God I wish we could Manhattan Project this shit. I'm a layman too but I get the impression that the theory is basically there and we just need to figure out the engineering. That's a solvable problem with lots of money and lots of teams. Are we going to wait until the sea level rises 20 feet and then say, geez, compared to the costs this imposed, fusion would have been easy?

Fission is a solved engineering and science problem though and we’re still blocking it to let the sea levels rise. Point being, nobody actually cares about climate change enough to make hard decisions so a Manhattan style project is highly unlikely.

Yes, I've been saying it over and over: raise the price of oil until gasoline et al are $20+/gallon. Then nuclear will be cheap.

Why are we letting a silly thing like scarcity, supply, and demand dictate whether we self-destruct?

Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant

#30

Post by trhway »

gameshot911 wrote: post #17

2040s? 20+ years from now!?! Too fuckin slow!! For all Musk's faults, he recognizes such timelines are untenable, and pushes people to do the 'impossible'.

And fortunately soon Musk will need fusion for Mars travel and colonies. He just personally got extra 100B to burn - i think SpaceX will start to hire nuclear scientists and engineers soon :)
Post reply on HN