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

31–40 of 240 posts

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

#31

Post by elihu »

tahoeskibum wrote: post #4

I think that solar/wind + battery (e.g. Tesla Megapack) will make fusion irrelevant.

Well, maybe. We can probably meet our current energy needs with solar/wind and some kind of energy storage and more long-distance transmission lines, but it won't be cheap or easy. (Maybe it'll be cheap in the long run, but in the short run it's a lot of infrastructure to build out.)

Fusion shouldn't be considered an essential prerequisite to address climate change, but it would be better to have it as an option than not. Being able to generate constant power reliably is very convenient.

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

#32

Post by rurounijones »

patmorgan23 wrote: post #26
gautamcgoel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> Generation doesn't have to be near consumption*

* As long as the generation and consumption both take place under the same government and the transmission infrastructure is safe from disruption.

So many plans about theoretical continental grids in Europe (with the extra mile of them being powered by solar in Africa) ignore the political reality that no government is going to give up significant chunks of the energy security of their country to something ouside their control.

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

#33

Post by garmaine »

howardr wrote: post #21
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…

For most of my life fusion has been perpetually 30 years away. Now it is only perpetually 20 years away. That's progress!

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

#34

Post by orthecreedence »

tahoeskibum wrote: post #4

I think that solar/wind + battery (e.g. Tesla Megapack) will make fusion irrelevant.

From what I know, wind/solar cannot power industrial needs, only residential. So we can get power at home to heat our house and watch netflix, but there will be no TVs or heaters to run off of the power.

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

#35

Post by garmaine »

Animats wrote: post #6

This is more like "Fusion physicists rally around plan to improve message asking for more money". It's not like there's a serious plan to build a power plant. Except at Lockheed's Skunk Works, which is quietly plugging away on their own.

There's also Commonwealth Fusion and TAE, not to mention General Fusion (Canadian, but with American investors and a number of American employees).

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

#37

Post by est31 »

Retric wrote: post #8
est31 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't batteries run into the Lithium problem? I heard somewhere that the global Lithium reserves allow us to convert the entire car fleet of humanity to electric, but not anything beyond that, certainly not allowing large scale battery deployments that would make a dent.

There’s more lithium in earths crust than Lead yet we mine ~50x as much lead. The only limitation on mining lithium is how concentrated is making it more or less expensive to extract. Currently raw Lithium is extremely cheap, it’s highly refined battery grade lithium that’s somewhat expensive. Rank 33: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth...

Abundance in the crust is one thing, ability to mine it is another. That's why you need to look at reserves [0] instead of resources. And there are way more lead reserves (88 million tons in 2016 [1]) than lithium ones (17 million tons [2]).

[0]: https://newpacificmetals.com/mining-101/mineral-estimates-re...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#On_Earth

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves

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

#38

Post by Lammy »

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…

I am pro-nuclear, and I think it would be a mistake to assume this article is also pro-nuclear. Heck, the very first six words ("U.S. fusion scientists, notorious for squabbling") prime a reader to see those hardworking people as bickering nerds working on fleeting, individual, theoretical interests.

I sincerely doubt we will see any uranium-based energy technology ascend to dominance/ubiquity while over half of Earth's known uranium deposits are in the Afghanistan/Kazakhstan/Ukraine region alone. Nobody would want to buy crude (priced exclusively in USD in most markets) if nuclear were widespread. We might have to lay off a few Stuxnet malware developers then too. Takin' their jobs :p

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...

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

#39

Post by jeffbee »

orthecreedence wrote: post #34
tahoeskibum wrote: post #4

I think that solar/wind + battery (e.g. Tesla Megapack) will make fusion irrelevant.

From what I know, wind/solar cannot power industrial needs, only residential. So we can get power at home to heat our house and watch netflix, but there will be no TVs or heaters to run off of the power.

Wut?

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

#40

Post by Lammy »

jeffbee wrote: post #39
orthecreedence wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I know, wind/solar cannot power industrial needs, only residential. So we can get power at home to heat our house and watch netflix, but there will be no TVs or heaters to run off of the power.

Wut?

Industry uses three-phase power unlike residential (USA perspective anyway). You'd need one of these for your solar farm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_micro-inverter
Post reply on HN