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

621–630 of 827 posts

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#621

Post by time_to_smile »

malka wrote: post #363
time_to_smile wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bet for sustainable and clean energy The best bet for sustainable and clean energy is to stop using fossil fuels and figure out how to deal with the economic consequences. I feel this optimism around this far off solutions for decades has been just a detrimental to climate action as out right climate denialism. Growing up in the 90s I was always told "everything will be fine, since we'll figure it all out with tech…

> the economic consequences. you mean the death of billions of people ?

Describe to me the scenario where billions don't die?

I think you're pointing to the very likely reality which is that there is no way out. More often than not I agree with you. It's just a shame that, as a society, we've chosen not to even publicly allow conversations about what's really happening and the choices we have to make.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#622

Post by kuschku »

orra wrote: post #613
baq wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30A at 400V is how we roll in the EU.

Wow. A typical induction hob in the UK is 32A at 230V. 230V is of course the nominal voltage of a single phase, although in practice in the UK the voltage is closer to 240V. That's only 7.35kW of power. Do you have significantly more powerful cookers?

400V is only used for stoves or instant water heaters, but e.g. our stove uses 11kW actually.

If you don’t have these amounts of energy available, the temperature your instant water heater can reach or the speed with which you can cook obviously suffers (which I suspect is one of the reasons why americans prefer gas stoves so much).

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#623

Post by kuschku »

HWR_14 wrote: post #536
Out_of_Characte wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Netherlands would like a word. Holding back the sea was a monumental project that will definitely last generations to come. Maybe not as exiting as high temp superconductors and fusion but still a nationwide unique product.

It may last for generations to come, but did the original development take generations?

Old-school land reclamation worked by putting woven fences in the water where waves would deposit sand over decades and centuries, slowly growing the land bit by bit. Those versions were already multi-generational projects.

(I'm citing the techniques used in the north frisian wadden sea, I'm unsure if the same techniques were used in west frisia as well)

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#625

Post by baryphonic »

> The fusion announcement is great news but sadly it won't help in our battle to lessen the effects of climate change.

> There's huge uncertainty about when fusion power will be ready for commercialisation. One estimate suggests maybe 20 years. Then fusion would need to scale up, which would mean a delay of perhaps another few decades.

> And here's the problem: the need for carbon-free energy is urgent - and the government has pledged that all electricity in the UK must be zero emissions by 2035. That means nuclear, renewables and energy storage.

> In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century."

Between promising results like this, the Wendelstein-7X (which sadly seems to have been delayed by COVID), and then the exceptionally exciting CFS in Massachusetts, I have a sense that we're making real progress toward fusion for the first time in a few decades. Doom and gloom won't do anything to increase investment in fusion that is beginning to look like a reasonable bet.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#626

Post by malka »

time_to_smile wrote: post #621
malka wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the economic consequences. you mean the death of billions of people ?

Describe to me the scenario where billions don't die? I think you're pointing to the very likely reality which is that there is no way out. More often than not I agree with you. It's just a shame that, as a society, we've chosen not to even publicly allow conversations about what's really happening and the choices we have to make.

> Describe to me the scenario where billions don't die?

There is not one.

I was merely pointing what I think is an euphemism.

> we've chosen not to even publicly allow conversations about what's really happening and the choices we have to make.

Because we are ashamed. We all know that the price of our current comfort is blood. Now and in the future. And our human nature seem to be unable to abandon comfort once we have it.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#627

Post by RivieraKid »

ppaattrriicckk wrote: post #59

In extension to this news and the press conference, one thing I am super excited about, is the private SPARC project and the MIT-spinoff Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS). If you don't know about it already, I would highly recommend checking it out (e.g. by searching YouTube for "MIT Sparc Fusion Reactor" for some fairly accessible videos on the theory behind why they should achieve fusion way faster than the current…

I think at this point it's very likely that CFS will succeed. But economics could be a problem, which is why I'm more excited about Helion or ZAP.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#628

Post by thedougd »

hedora wrote: post #555
bityard wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US grid (the last-mile bits anyway) isn't 110 volts, it's 220. It's just our houses that are wired for (mostly) 110 V. Edit: I would love to see some sort of hybrid 110/220 V residential wiring/plug standard take hold in the US. It would require more expensive cable in the walls (since you need one additional conductor) and plugs, but it's totally doable. Most electrical products and appliances made these days ar…

You could just run US-style appliance circuits to your kitchen, etc. Those are sometimes three conductor and other times four conductor. However, I doubt it'd pass inspection if they were easily accessible from the counter-top. If you're going to flout building codes anyway, it'd probably be easier/more practical to just run circuits with foreign outlets instead. Also, it might be easier to find appropriate GFCI brea…

EU is on 50hz AC, where as the US is on 60hz. It would work fine for purely resistive appliances, and possibly devices with switching mode power supplies, but some devices would be unhappy plugging in to the wrong frequency at 220V.

I'm not sure about the phase alignment but that may be an issue as well. US is split phase, but Europe has 220 on a single conductor?

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#629

Post by kolinko »

spuz wrote: post #142
cnasc wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you live in a smallish, not-so-sunny country like the UK. How much of your land area do you have to cover with solar panels in order to completely rid the nation of fossil fuels?

Apparently, about 12% of the land or 29,690 sq km in order to meet current energy demands (electricity, petrol, oil and gas). Apparently, only 6% of the country is currently built on which suggests that for any country of a similar latitude, you can estimate a land total of double that currently used per person. This does not take into account energy storage and assumes no energy is generated at night. https://www.fi…

1 sq km = 100 hectares = 100 GWh of energy produced per year in northern Europe.

29000 sq km = 2900 TWh

Which is 10x the current electricity use of UK.

I think they may be overestimating the numbers by taking the petrol, oil and gas verbatim - whereas they should consider that electric cars have way higher efficiency, and electric heating can be done also way more efficiently than gas heating (because heat pumps).

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#630

Post by soperj »

bostonsre wrote: post #523
soperj wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm suggesting not to hold him or his money in high regard. He's not worth mentioning.

Aren't the causes that he is championing worth mentioning tho? Why is there a need to purge him from current public discourse when he did something bad in the past? I don't think we should disprove of bad people doing good things. Just because he did something bad doesn't mean he can no longer make commendable contributions to society.

The causes yes, Bill, not so much.
Post reply on HN