Earlier quoted context omitted.
Miniaturized fusion (I know, a long way from this -- but so were computers) would revolutionize everything. Including transit, shipping, airlines, and other industries where batteries won't quite cut it (not to mention deep-space exploration).
Unless it's ready to replace ~all of our fossil energy within the next 20-30 years (ideally less) it's not good enough to stop climate change.
U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
121–130 of 240 posts
Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
#122Earlier 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?
Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
#123Earlier 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?
>God I wish we could Manhattan Project this shit. Interesting point of reference: the Manhattan project cost around around $25 billion in today's dollars. The US government spent at least $6 trillion on the coronavirus response, which could buy 200 Manhattan Projects. Coronavirus will kill around a million people this year at most; air pollution kills around five million per year (and sea level rises could kill a lot…
Then one B-29 had an emergency landing in Sovjet and the soviets reversed engineered it into the TU-4. Tu-94 which is still flying is a newer scaled up version of this.
It's amazing how much of the innovation the U.S did in the 1940s ended up in others hands(the bomb, B-29). The world would probably be very different if it hadn't happened.
Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
#1242040s? 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'.
Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
#125Earlier 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.
Edit- link to article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-...
Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its amazing how cutting emission by regulation is completely left out of the list of options, somehow spending infinite money is seen as easier than getting congress to act... Anyway, I let Wellerstein reply to this: """The Manhattan Project was an unusual, somewhat dubious enterprise that had massive, world-affecting consequences. Ignoring that not only misunderstands the Manhattan Project, it misunderstands what ha…
It's widely believed that the use of the bombs in WWII as a practical demonstration of the technology is what lead to there not being a WWIII and generally a period of (granted, uneasy) world stability throughout the cold war. Thanks to the bomb's use at the end of an almost-finished conflict, everyone was too afraid of the destruction to turn the cold war hot. Without it, the cold war would have turned hot and a lot…
This is just one of many lacklustre attempts at justifying a hideous war crime. From Eisenhower:
"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Why do fission in orbit when you have unimpeded access to a huge natural fusion plant, and virtually unlimited real estate to harvest its energy?
Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
#128Earlier 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?
>God I wish we could Manhattan Project this shit. Interesting point of reference: the Manhattan project cost around around $25 billion in today's dollars. The US government spent at least $6 trillion on the coronavirus response, which could buy 200 Manhattan Projects. Coronavirus will kill around a million people this year at most; air pollution kills around five million per year (and sea level rises could kill a lot…
Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
>God I wish we could Manhattan Project this shit. Interesting point of reference: the Manhattan project cost around around $25 billion in today's dollars. The US government spent at least $6 trillion on the coronavirus response, which could buy 200 Manhattan Projects. Coronavirus will kill around a million people this year at most; air pollution kills around five million per year (and sea level rises could kill a lot…
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.
Re: U.S. physicists rally around plan to build fusion power plant
#130Are 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…
There will never be a commercial tokamak power plant. There has never, at any time, been any reasonable expectation of getting practical, commercial power from magnetic-confinement hot-neutron fusion.
Renewables, with practical energy storage, will always be much, much cheaper than fusion could ever have been, even if it could be made into a workable idea. Any practical fusion plant would have to absolutely huge -- an order of magnitude bigger than the biggest fission plant. Then, it would destroy its most expensive parts with neutron flux in short order. To continue using it, it would have be be rebuilt, frequently, and at even more ruinous expense, using robots.
"Break-even" is nowhere near enough to get practical power out, because the energy extraction process must be so inefficient, with two stages of heat exchange before you get a working fluid you can run through your turbine.
Tokamak fusion research is, first, foremost, and always, a jobs program to maintain a population of high-neutron-flux physicists as a population to draw upon for weapons work. Actual useful power has never been the point, or any sort of practical goal.
Thus, the burgeoning hype is meant to counter the dawning realization that the whole program always was, still is, and can only ever be a shuck. They need enough billions poured into the project to make it politically self-sustaining, where no amount of failure can ever threaten its funding, because so much has already been sunk that it would be too embarrassing to admit failure.
As it is, to ever actually break even, all the fusion plants that could be built would have to operate for decades just to pay back all the money that has already been sunk, without any commercial construction, before even starting to pay back any of the actual (huge) construction costs. But the only way to keep them operating would be via enormous public subsidies, because they could never compete on a level field with solar and wind. So, the longer they were operated, the deeper in the hole they would get.