Live data from Hacker News

Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab

imperial.ac.uk

101–110 of 494 posts

Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab

#101
post #61

Meta-question about fusion energy -something I don't understand about the movement. I spent a few years as CTO of a company providing heat-to-electricity plants. We financed and built them off high-heat plants like natural gas turbines. The "fuel" was heat going up the stack - so it was essentially free. We still couldn't compete with conventional electricity plants, even with a $30/tonne price on carbon in Canada. G…

The question is not _if_ it will be cheaper, but _when_. Gas is a limited resource. We will eventually run out of it, the closer we get to that point the more expensive gas will become. But that point - without political intervention - can be many decades away.

Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab

#102
post #61

Meta-question about fusion energy -something I don't understand about the movement. I spent a few years as CTO of a company providing heat-to-electricity plants. We financed and built them off high-heat plants like natural gas turbines. The "fuel" was heat going up the stack - so it was essentially free. We still couldn't compete with conventional electricity plants, even with a $30/tonne price on carbon in Canada. G…

Natural gas is only inexpensive because of fracking.

With fracking in the USA at least the people involved can set up an LLC that dissolves after the well runs out. They are not required to disclose the contents of the fracking wastewater fluid. It gets pumped back down underground where it could dissipate into the rest of the water system. These people claim that it's safe for decades when our computer models can't predict the weather accurately next week.

In California now they're using fracking wastewater on crops because of the water shortages. Without disclosing what's in it. And not testing for if that stuff ends up in the food. These people are using loopholes to take the profits now and leave society with the bills for cleanup and the health consequences. That isn't sustainable or IMO fair or just. If the real cost of fossil fuels was clear up front they would not make sense.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-drought-oil-w...

Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab

#103
post #72
post #61

Meta-question about fusion energy -something I don't understand about the movement. I spent a few years as CTO of a company providing heat-to-electricity plants. We financed and built them off high-heat plants like natural gas turbines. The "fuel" was heat going up the stack - so it was essentially free. We still couldn't compete with conventional electricity plants, even with a $30/tonne price on carbon in Canada. G…

It's political. Taxes on carbon pollution are inevitable, but for the time being there is still political blockage because of the power of the cartels.

Politically the problem is that voters want action on climate change but aren't willing to pay any visible cost associated with that action. If you put a tax on carbon that raises the price of something by $100 then that's a political no-go. But if you create a cap and trade system that raises the price by $150 that might be politically viable. Not ideal, but one has to compromise with political realities.

Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Study this: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... Ignoring storage: it makes no sense now to build anything but wind and solar. Only the marginal cost of gas is cheaper (meaning existing plants, not new ones). Including storage: conventional is still cheaper, but not by much (within a factor of 2): $81 for PV+storage vs. $44 for gas combined cycle. We should put more resources into storage n…

"We should put more resources into breeding faster horses now, internal combustion can wait." - someone in late 19 century.

The benefits of a car were immediately obvious as soon as supply lines were considered. Feed for horses was something like 30% of all deliveries in a horse-based supply chain.

Railroads run off of coal, but steam-engines were huge. ICE engines were miniature engines that also ran off of a fuel source (eventually settling upon oil, but many different fuel sources were considered in those early days, including electricity).

---------

Such benefits are not immediately obvious with solar/wind. In particular, USA doubles its electricity usage each day, and then it shrinks down to 50% by nightfall (which does NOT time with the sun, its slightly offset: the 5pm sun loses most of its solar-power but homes are still hot and using a ton of electricity for A/C)

As a baseload plant, solar/wind, even with storage, is a bit unreliable. That's fine, they're a cheap source of energy but you need to consider things like hurricanes: winds too fast so you need to shut off the wind plants (otherwise they'd spin too fast and damage themselves), and the cloud cover so thick you lose most of your solar power.

Since there's no storage mechanism that lasts for days (ex: hypothetical hurricane), you end up needing to build a 200MW gas turbine ("just in case"), +200MW of clean energy.

Note: this is fine. This is probably the best path forward for now. But nuclear is reliable and doesn't need this "natural gas assist". Even if a hurricane sweeps over an area, the nuclear power plants will keep working.

EDIT: The issues come up if someone builds 200MW of solar panels / wind but fails to build any "just in case" energy sources. Which is happening. Their grids will fail when solar/wind inevitably cuts off.

Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab

#105
post #20
post #2

Is this "plasma breakeven" or overall break-even?

What's important here is that they may have achieved ignition, that is making the fusion reaction self sustaining[0]. Once it becomes self sustaining one should be able to add more fuel to the pellet to get more energy out for the same input energy. It's worth noting that NIF was not intended to generate power and is not representative of a potential power plant. The lasers on NIF are old and were chosen to have a lo…

> Once it becomes self sustaining one should be able to add more fuel to the pellet to get more energy out for the same input energy.

That's not how ICF works. Plasma, being a gas-like state, will always expand to fill whatever volume is presented. With ignition, the rate of expansion is essentially lower than the rate of fusion, allowing you to fuse all of the fuel before the plasma dissipates and cools down.

In ICF as studied at NIF, you start with an extremely precisely machined piece of metal called a hohlraum, you put a solid pellet of fuel inside at an extremely precise location, then fire a laser with extremely precise alignment to heat the hohlraum until it generates X-Rays that heat the pellet just right so that its outer layer explodes, creating an equal implosion, generating two shockwaves inside the pellet; if the two shockwaves meet just right, at the center of their meeting place you get a fusion reaction, and you hope that that fusion reaction has enough time to heat up and cause more fusion reactions before the initial implosion loses speed and expansion happens.

That initial shock is the only thing containing the plasma - once it has lost its velocity, the plasma dissipates and cools down. If ignition was reached, the gas that cools down and dissipates should be 100% He, instead of a mix of He, D and T. However, there is no way to stop this dissipation, it is a fundamental part of ICF.

The only way to keep an ICF reactor going is to shoot one laser burst at one pellet, capture the energy of the fusion, and use that to power the next laser burst fired at the next pellet.

Of course, after each burst of laser heating the hohlraum so much that it radiates the heat as X rays, and then briefly containing a 1-10M kelvin burst of hot plasma, plus a neutron bombardment, the hohlraum is destroyed. Since machining the hohlraum to the precise shape required to achieve the shockwaves discussed above is never going to be a cheap process, it is impossible to imagine ICF would ever be even a tiny bit close to economical, even if it could in principle output more energy than it requires as input.

As such, ICF is strictly a scientific pursuit, mostly interesting for nuclear weapons research.

Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab

#106
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t you still need to spend energy on confinement? You don’t need to “reignite” the plasma but w/e confinement solution you chosen still has a cost and a non marginal one when it comes to magnetic confinement.

this uses inertial confinement rather than magnetic confinement.

Yes, with ICF you do need to constantly reignite the plasma.

Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab

#107
post #61

Meta-question about fusion energy -something I don't understand about the movement. I spent a few years as CTO of a company providing heat-to-electricity plants. We financed and built them off high-heat plants like natural gas turbines. The "fuel" was heat going up the stack - so it was essentially free. We still couldn't compete with conventional electricity plants, even with a $30/tonne price on carbon in Canada. G…

Study this: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... Ignoring storage: it makes no sense now to build anything but wind and solar. Only the marginal cost of gas is cheaper (meaning existing plants, not new ones). Including storage: conventional is still cheaper, but not by much (within a factor of 2): $81 for PV+storage vs. $44 for gas combined cycle. We should put more resources into storage n…

[deleted]

Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab

#108
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Study this: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... Ignoring storage: it makes no sense now to build anything but wind and solar. Only the marginal cost of gas is cheaper (meaning existing plants, not new ones). Including storage: conventional is still cheaper, but not by much (within a factor of 2): $81 for PV+storage vs. $44 for gas combined cycle. We should put more resources into storage n…

PV+storage is how many hours of storage? Storing enough power to last a night is just getting close to commercially viable afaik, but storing enough power to last a winter is still quite expensive.

The best storage is no storage at all, it is demand-response.

Things like responsive appliances and EV chargers that can schedule their load rather than insisting that limitless power be available instantaneously. I don't care when the dishwasher runs as long as the dishes are clean by tomorrow, you know?

Of course right now, putting the word "smart" on an appliance doesn't imply any of that, and the way it ends up implemented will probably be terrible and a half. But theoretically, demand-response could dramatically reduce the need for storage. I think it truly has a large role to play, but the folks releasing insecure internet-of-shit devices have a lot to answer for first.

Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab

#109
post #61

Meta-question about fusion energy -something I don't understand about the movement. I spent a few years as CTO of a company providing heat-to-electricity plants. We financed and built them off high-heat plants like natural gas turbines. The "fuel" was heat going up the stack - so it was essentially free. We still couldn't compete with conventional electricity plants, even with a $30/tonne price on carbon in Canada. G…

You can't put a price on energy independence in a free market economy. Energy independence is a military objective and a matter of national security. The costs are difficult to put in perspective.

Oil companies are subsidized to the tune of Billions of dollars an hour. Subsidizing fusion energy would merely be redirecting that money to the greater payoff.

Re: Major nuclear fusion milestone reached as ‘ignition’ triggered in a lab

#110
post #32

Sweet, nucluear fusion now must only be 20 years away!

20 years ago we were joking about it being 40 year away. So yes, it is timely progress. I am still bitter that we don't invest more on this research which has the potential to solve the climate crisis "unexpectedly".

ICF really doesn't have this potential, definitely not in the way it is practiced here. Each shot at NIF costs a few million dollars in material costs alone, because of the precisely machined parts that are required to achieve inertial confinement of the plasma long enough to make it start fusion, which get destroyed in the process.
Post reply on HN