Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 827 posts

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#271

Post by soperj »

DrBazza wrote: post #87
dfdz wrote: post #80

> This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997. The experiment produced > 11 megawatts of power and at Jet > two 500 megawatt flywheels are used to run the experiments log_2(2*500/11)*(2022-1997) + 2022 = 2185 At this rate we will have fusion by 2185 I guess?

It's 30 years time. It's always 30 years time. https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/why-nuclear-fusi...

It was 30 years away at current levels of funding. Funding dipped considerably. This is as dumb as when they ask you for an estimate at work, then change the scope of the project and then retort with "well it was your estimate".

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#272

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #259
dymk wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I mean fusion. The parent comment claims "[Fusion can] provide steady energy without going down for years". I want a single example of this. Meanwhile, we have massive grids of solar and battery being installed _today_, and existing installations replacing coal plants. I'm tired of people talking about fusion (or even nuclear, as it's so mired in public FUD) as if it's some panacea. We have a solution right now:…

We haven't invented commercial fusion power, so none; but theoretically that is how they would function. Solar and batteries are nice but they're not yet cost effective. They're getting better. But you can't just handwave away real problems from your armchair viewpoint and assume thats all fine.

> We haven't invented commercial fusion power

We don't have working fusion power, at all.

> Solar and batteries are nice but they're not yet cost effective

"Cost effective" is a judgement call, not physics. If I told you that the cost of coal-generated electricity was that your great-grandchildren would live in an impoverished and difficult world, you might not view that a particular cost-effective either, yet somehow that's the "standard" against which things are judged.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#274

Post by babypuncher »

formvoltron wrote: post #105

OK so with fusion everybody loves it because the fuel would be clean and nearly endless. Isn't that what solar power offers? Nobody wants to deploy solar due to high upfront cost. However, wouldn't the startup on a fusion reactor be much greater?

A fusion reactor works at night, and could produce considerably more energy per square foot of land area than photovoltaics.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#275

Post by sroussey »

andrepd wrote: post #254
Wiseacre wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven't even been splitting atoms for a full century yet. Give science some goddamn time to work.

Not to mention we haven't invested a fiftieth of what we should have into fusion research.

More money goes to subsidizing almonds.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#276

Post by vbezhenar »

Wiseacre wrote: post #226
khafra wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fusion is always 30 years away" is a heuristic that almost always works. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/heuristics-that-almost...

We haven't even been splitting atoms for a full century yet. Give science some goddamn time to work.

20 century progress was so crazy that people got all the kinds of unrealistic expectations.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#278

Post by antisthenes »

orangepurple wrote: post #246
andruby wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but if we can crack fusion energy, we can stop burning fossil fuels and we might even have ample energy to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

We already have the capability to economically capture atmospheric carbon with existing nuclear power generation systems

No post body was provided.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#279

Post by pmontra »

kiba wrote: post #112
m_fayer wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to hear someone make this point. Rather than sneering "vaporware" when decades fail to crack a problem, I would prefer us to keep in mind that if we never try multi-generational projects, we will never taste the fruit of multi-generational projects, and those are some sweet fruit indeed.

I am not sure if we have a project that spans multiple generations? It would be easier to do a project that provide some kind of immediate benefit while having long term multigenerational long term effect. Science is kinda that way. We get immediate knowledge with long term unknown payoff.

Decommissioning a fission power plant and storing nuclear waste in a safe way? That's probably a multi civilization project. The easy part first.
Post reply on HN