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

331–340 of 827 posts

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#331

Post by onychomys »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #307
yholio wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, a major breakthrough in this glacial field is doubling the energy output in 25 yeas. So by the time captain Picard is born, we might have a very expensive and massive fusion reactor that will generate the same kind of energy we can generate today with very expensive and massive fission reactors. Really now, this is pure garbage and does not solve the major problems in the field nor do most of the myriad startups…

"with very expensive and massive fission reactors" The laws if physics don't owe us a free lunch. Light, safe and cheap powersource does not exist Fossil fuels aren't a power source, they wre a power store - that power was collected and millions of years ago. Also 100% productivity on 25 years is quite good - what did combustion engines improve in that time, 5%?

The 1997 F-150 made 220bhp and got 18mpg [0], while the 2022 F-150 makes 400bhp and 19mpg [1], so fusion is doing way better than that!

(...i think i chose comparable trim levels to do that comparison, there are a stunning number of choices there!)

[0] https://www.cars.com/research/ford-f_150-1997/specs/103719/ [1] https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2022/features-specs/

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#332

Post by Lev1a »

Filligree wrote: post #298
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.

Fusion produces a lot more radiation than fission, AIUI. What makes you think it will be any more politically viable to scale out than fission reactors?

> What makes you think it will be any more politically viable to scale out than fission reactors?

IIRC a major difference would be the danger potential in case of a "meltdown", since a fusion reactor wouldn't have kilograms or even tons of uranium etc. laying around to form another elephant's foot but "just" the irradiated reactor vessel which AIUI is both not as dangerous or as long-lived as fission fuel, a fission reactor itself and fission waste products.

Also IIRC the actual "meltdown" of a fusion reactor would involve the reaction environment (extremely high temperatures and pressures) breaking down at which point the reaction stops almost immediately no longer producing any additional radiation or waste products, leaving only the already irradiated reactor vessel to deal with since the comparatively tiny volume of reactant(s) (probably one or more different Hydrogen isotopes) and reaction product(s) (probably Helium) will escape quickly and with pretty much no harm done.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#333

Post by Joeri »

axg11 wrote: post #37

What is stopping one of the major western governments from printing $50B of their own currency and investing it all in an intensive fusion programme? There doesn’t seem to be much to lose (these economies are already unreasonably inflated) but so much to gain from viable fusion.

As others have pointed out, ITER has this kind of funding, and it is not the only nuclear fusion research program. It is unclear whether more money will accelerate.

As for green R&D in general, the EU is massively investing in hydrogen research, as something that can be made with excess variable solar and wind power, and be used as a green alternative to natural gas in many situations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariannelehnis/2021/12/31/the-e...

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#334

Post by willis936 »

pizlonator wrote: post #319

This is a red flag: "These experiments we've just completed had to work," Situations like this create a pressure cooker of bias. Maybe they got the result they wanted by force of will not because of the underlying science or engineering.

The stakes are high, but failure is always an option. I've seen machines take years to get density under control. What the JET team has achieved is exceptional.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#335

Post by steve_adams_86 »

soperj wrote: post #310
wowokay wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, we should discount all his contributions and hold him a accountable for his past actions right? Man I'm glad the rest of us never make mistakes and have all contributed so much more then him..

I'm sorry, but if the Queen can disavow her own kid for his affiliation with Jeffery Epstein, and Bill's wife can do the same, we can disavow Bill Gates. Just because he has money doesn't mean a damn thing w/r to whether we have to hold him to any regard. He's proven over decades to not be a good person. There's a reason Paul Allen ended his relationship with Bill Gates.

I didn't know about Paul Allen, but after searching it seems the top result is about how they managed to regain some friendship: https://www.geekwire.com/2019/bill-gates-patched-things-paul...

I know very little about Gates but can only find information indicating Epstein wanted to do business with him under the guise of it being a great benefit to charity, which in the end turned out to be a ruse of some sort. Perhaps it's untrue, but I don't see damning evidence. There are photos, but surely there are hundreds or thousands of photos of Epstein with people. Is there something that you know that I'm not finding?

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#336

Post by pm90 »

throwawayninja wrote: post #308
soperj wrote: post #265

Quoted post unavailable.

Honestly I find Bill Gates a pretty OK dude, all things considered. If you live life without making any mistakes/enemies that means you really didn't live at all.

Nobody is saying that you need to be a perfect moral paragon. But having a documented close relationship with the most famous and powerful pedophile isn’t something you can gloss over. His departure from the MS over inappropriate conduct seems to paint a pattern: this is a powerful guy who abused his power over women repeatedly and it’s worth calling that out.

(Please no whataboutism; yes there are probably worst billionaires than him; yes all of them should be held to account for their actions).

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#339

Post by ClumsyPilot »

thehappypm wrote: post #291
epistasis wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, drilling tech is advancing at an incredible rate, making geothermal possible in all sorts of new places all the time. But my primary concern with fusion is cost. I don't see the path to being cheaper than geothermal, nor fission, and new fission is already some of our most expensive energy. The goal may be eventual space travel, which seems like a more plausible goal to talk about than sustainable energy.

There’s nothing fundamentally expensive about a Tokamak. We’re in the phase of fusion of “computers have 1 Kb of memory and take up a whole basement.”

What does 'fundamentally expensive' mean?

If it does not incluse precision engineering to build largest vacuum vessel, supercomputers, superconductors, generation and containment of hottest substance on the planet, and largest magnetic fields we can produce. If that's not 'fundamentally expensive', then what is?

Especially when your interlocutor is asking for geothermal, a.k.a. a hole in the ground?

Post reply on HN