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

71–80 of 240 posts

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

#71

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

gpm wrote: post #53
trhway wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Fission seems like the better option for mars. The technology is ready now, and no one cares about a bit of nuclear waste on mars anyways.

Space probes require a minuscule amount of radioactive fuel, but launching that into space has still occasionally caused concern among environmentalists, as something might go wrong during launch. Can you imagine the resistance if someone wanted to launch enough processed uranium to support a Mars colony?

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

#72

Post by nine_k »

orthecreedence wrote: post #29
kortilla wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Most fossil-based electric generation is not oil; it's either natural gas (reasonably clean, though it does produce a lot of CO₂), or coal (terrible on many counts).

I'd say that killing coal would have a large effect. It would also put entire town populations out of work — a really hard problem, read about how UK tackled it in 1970s and 1980s, it was painful and ugly.

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

#73

Post by nine_k »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #71
gpm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fission seems like the better option for mars. The technology is ready now, and no one cares about a bit of nuclear waste on mars anyways.

Space probes require a minuscule amount of radioactive fuel, but launching that into space has still occasionally caused concern among environmentalists, as something might go wrong during launch. Can you imagine the resistance if someone wanted to launch enough processed uranium to support a Mars colony?

If it's a pebble bed design, easily.

Pebbles are uranium coated with multiple protective layers, extremely strong. They could be collected and reused if the launch vehicle plainly explodes on the launch pad.

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

#74

Post by numpad0 »

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.

Politics, NIMBY, risks of accidents, and radioactive materials pollution are unsolved problems. You could argue it’s sociology than engineering but a problem nonetheless.

I think nukes is the future but nukes belong in space; just build some fission on high orbit to perfect fusion, and bring the meat down over microwave or as bulk hydrocarbons or whatever that works.

Solar system has unlimited free meal supplies of raw materials on first-come-first-serve basis. It’s been said that extraterrestrially constructed spacecraft can be launched for free merely by gently pushing it out of dockyard, or at most shooting out of a maglev train, for at least half a century.

So build some gigantic fission satellites in space!

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

#75

Post by conk »

orthecreedence wrote: post #63
jeffbee wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wut?

Not enough output.

There are utility scale solar plants being planned/built that produce over a gigawatt of power. They rival the output of the largest power plants today. They can absolutely run industrial facilities as well as homes.

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

#76

Post by Xorlev »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #70
jdeibele wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been saying for a long time that the US should increase the tax on gas steadily every year. Even a nickel a year would be OK but more would be better. People would be able to plan on the price increasing every year and make sound economic decisions on whether they wanted to move closer to work, etc. Unfortunately, it became apparent about the same time that the US is almost incapable of doing something in an org…

Fuel in the US is already much more expensive than two decades ago. I remember buying a gallon for around 90 cents in 1999, and at the same time I read a newspaper article about some immigrant-run stations on the Jersey shore that had slashed their prices to several cents below that, as they were content to make a tiny profit margin and play a long game. Now a gallon costs more than twice as much as then, but as far…

$0.90 in 1999 is $1.41 today. Near me, gas is ~$2 (give or take). So, more expensive (~40-50%), but not double.

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

#77

Post by Lammy »

numpad0 wrote: post #74
kortilla wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Politics, NIMBY, risks of accidents, and radioactive materials pollution are unsolved problems. You could argue it’s sociology than engineering but a problem nonetheless. I think nukes is the future but nukes belong in space; just build some fission on high orbit to perfect fusion, and bring the meat down over microwave or as bulk hydrocarbons or whatever that works. Solar system has unlimited free meal supplies of r…

> You could argue it’s sociology than engineering but a problem nonetheless.

It can be both when the consent is manufactured! :)

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

#78

Post by divbzero »

Are at an inflection point for fusion power? With interest and funding for it finally gaining steam? I’ve noticed several announcements about independent efforts this past year [1–6] but not sure if (a) it’s always been this way or (b) my view is skewed by HN.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21806334 "General Fusion"

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23979608 "ITER"

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24629828 "SPARC"

[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24986528 "MAST Upgrade"

[5]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25209666 "NIF"

[6]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25261068 "KSTAR"

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

#79

Post by jl6 »

pontifier wrote: post #69

Ok, say I've got a new design for a fusion reactor, but it takes me 5 years to convince anyone that it's worth investigating. Fusion power has been set back 5 years. Someone please help me evaluate my design. Please! http://www.DDPROfusion.com

I can’t evaluate your design but I can evaluate your messaging. You need to do something to distinguish yourself from cranks and scammers, like write it up in a paper and get it published - and stop referring to yourself in plural.

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

#80

Post by lifeisstillgood »

divbzero wrote: post #78

Are at an inflection point for fusion power? With interest and funding for it finally gaining steam? I’ve noticed several announcements about independent efforts this past year [1–6] but not sure if (a) it’s always been this way or (b) my view is skewed by HN. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21806334 "General Fusion" [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23979608 "ITER" [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com…

>>> b) my view is skewed by HN. Making us anti-fake news?? :-)

However I also have the same impression, and HN is one of my leading indicators so it could well be coalescing.

Post reply on HN