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

111–120 of 240 posts

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

#111

Post by global-citizen »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #65
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'm not a fan of this sentiment. Sometimes things are just really f'ing hard, and no amount of "pushing people" is going to change the reality of how long those things take. I mean, if you look at both Tesla and SpaceX, nothing they've done was thought to be "impossible" from the outset from a scientific perspective . Electric cars already existed when Tesla was started, and we've been shooting rockets into space for…

I totally disagree, but accept that maybe Musk might have not been the best example.

Better ones, driven by the government (albeit during a hot and cold war): the Manhattan Project and landing humans on the Moon, respectively.

Both had insane timelines, no clear or certainty of success but the pressure, backing and motivation delivered.

We need more of this, and yesterday.

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

#112

Post by tremon »

jacquesm wrote: post #105
Xorlev wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Here it's closer to $2 / liter. (1/4 of a Gallon).

Sure, but your "here" isn't in the US.

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

#113

Post by hardlianotion »

pjc50 wrote: post #91
nine_k wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The death of UK coal was all to do with economics of importing coal and labour prices and relations, rather than climate change. But also that's why most green parties talk of a "just transition", subsidy to the workers who will lose their jobs.

It was also to do with cleaner energy generation and taking advantage of natural gas resources in North Sea. Dash to Gas was a major enabler of the switch away from coal in the 90s.

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

#114

Post by alimw »

jl6 wrote: post #79
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.

Not sure about the plural thing? In my own field a paper using singular forms would really stand out. Why remind readers and reviewers that you are working alone in every single sentence? Genuinely interested to hear your reasons! This is an issue for the paper I am currently working on. Naturally I would prefer to use the singular where it is accurate, and if I were better established I would.

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

#115

Post by dmos62 »

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'd argue that one of Musk's strengths is _not_ doing the very hard things, but finding projects that are relatively low-hanging fruit. Electric cars, multi-use rockets, driving AI. Those aren't the harder problems. Fusion, for example, is on a different level.

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

#116

Post by deweller »

olau wrote: post #110
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?

Fusion is not going to solve the sea level rise problem. You can see this by comparing it to fission. Fission fuels is not expensive on a kWh base, so cheaper fuel is not really a big advantage. Fusion plants produce radioactive waste too (perhaps less?), so you don't save yourself from that headache. Which isn't actually that big of a problem either, even if the costs are probably underestimated for fission plants.…

Fusion does not create any long-lived radioactive waste.

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

#117

Post by tyho »

deweller wrote: post #116
olau wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fusion is not going to solve the sea level rise problem. You can see this by comparing it to fission. Fission fuels is not expensive on a kWh base, so cheaper fuel is not really a big advantage. Fusion plants produce radioactive waste too (perhaps less?), so you don't save yourself from that headache. Which isn't actually that big of a problem either, even if the costs are probably underestimated for fission plants.…

Fusion does not create any long-lived radioactive waste.

No, but fast neutrons are created in some processes which induce long lived radiation in reactor materials though.

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

#118

Post by WJW »

nine_k wrote: post #73
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the problem is more when it explodes when the rocket is already going mach 10 and the resulting explosion scatters thousands of radioactive pebbles across several thousand square kilometres of Atlantic ocean, possibly hundreds of metres deep.

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

#119

Post by wallwart »

Serious question: what happens after? Will it literally be 'free energy'? And are we ready as a society to handle this properly? How do we ensure that this will benefit everyone and not create an enormous imbalance by itself?

I guess the existing economics will be broken at some point if the cost of everything will be driven down in such a way. Are there any articles/works that explore this issue?

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

#120

Post by throwaway0a5e »

xyzzyz wrote: post #88
01100011 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you implying, intentionally or not, that a "Manhattan Project" level of expenditure, $25 billion, is enough to make meaningful progress towards commercial fusion energy production? I don't think that is a given.

The implication is rather that we’ve grown much more inept when it comes to getting things done.

Because there isn't an existential war going on forcing people to listen to the people who want to be economically efficient.
Post reply on HN