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

791–800 of 827 posts

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#791

Post by mcculley »

One thing that has been on my mind lately is wondering if having easy fusion would be bad.

I am 50. All my life, we have been told that workable fusion would end our energy problems. But now we have the climate crisis, which is a result of inhabitants of the planet not being responsible for externalities.

If we all had cheap fusion reactors, wouldn't humanity just use a lot more energy, creating waste heat and dumping it into the atmosphere?

I'm not convinced humans can be trusted with cheaper energy if it leads to more waste heat.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#792

Post by [deleted] »

credit_guy wrote: post #701
brutusborn wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're mistaken about the government involvement in fracking. Sure, the basic technique may have been developed by private companies, but government supported research expanded it to oil and gas applications. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/us-government-role...

> government supported research expanded it to oil and gas applications. The Government gets involved in a lot of things, but it doesn't mean its contribution is essential. For a recent example, the NIH is claiming the Moderna vaccine is due to their contribution, and sure, you'll be able to find one or a few grants here or there of a few hundred thousand dollars, but the massive investments of tens of millions of do…

[deleted]

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#793

Post by brutusborn »

credit_guy wrote: post #701
brutusborn wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're mistaken about the government involvement in fracking. Sure, the basic technique may have been developed by private companies, but government supported research expanded it to oil and gas applications. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/us-government-role...

> government supported research expanded it to oil and gas applications. The Government gets involved in a lot of things, but it doesn't mean its contribution is essential. For a recent example, the NIH is claiming the Moderna vaccine is due to their contribution, and sure, you'll be able to find one or a few grants here or there of a few hundred thousand dollars, but the massive investments of tens of millions of do…

You're right, but I think it was essential in this case: " His comment that “the DOE started it” refers to the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a research effort in the Appalachia Basin from 1979 that proved shale rock was rich in natural gas. The DOE-supported project tested the use of nitrogen foam to fracture shale formations, and its analysis led to a deeper understanding of natural shale fractures.

George Mitchell’s team studied those results while developing the Barnett Shale near Fort Worth, the first modern fracking play. The company relied on research from the Sandia National Laboratory to use micro-seismic technology to map the shale fractures in wells, and Mitchell also benefited from federal tax credits for unconventional drilling, which helped underwrite the cost of developing hydraulic fracturing. " https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2013/10/31/how-much...

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#794

Post by spywaregorilla »

formvoltron wrote: post #676
spywaregorilla wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar is, without a doubt, a major part of future energy grids. But this chart is the levelized cost of energy. Its not the price at which you can get it. Energy demands are higher in winter. They are non trivial at night. The cost of energy might be low, but the price at which you can get it may be very high if not enough is available.

A lot of the "not available at night" argument can be solved with.... owning an EV. I use 6kWh / day. (not sure how! but that's what the power company says) A decent EV battery holds 20 kWh or more. Boom. There is my night time storage buffer.

Average home uses 30kWh per day. And that's average. Winter is higher, and would be much much higher if we were trying to use electricity to heat homes instead natural gas. Where do you live? CA? You have a lot more sun and land than other areas. Building the generation capacity in your area might not help areas that actually need the power to the north and east. And what if you need your car to have full power? What if you're not a low needs residential unit but a hospital? Or a factory? What if you have a couple low sun days in a row? What if your city just does not have enough power in reserves and its very cold or very hot?

Battery tech and solar is great, but its not the perfect solution.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#795

Post by RyEgswuCsn »

mcculley wrote: post #791

One thing that has been on my mind lately is wondering if having easy fusion would be bad. I am 50. All my life, we have been told that workable fusion would end our energy problems. But now we have the climate crisis, which is a result of inhabitants of the planet not being responsible for externalities. If we all had cheap fusion reactors, wouldn't humanity just use a lot more energy, creating waste heat and dumpin…

I feel that the issue at the moment is the more heat is being trapped due to a CO2-rich atmosphere rather than producing excessive heat. After all, the energy we produce is probably miniscule compared to the amount of energy Earth receives from the sun.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#796

Post by rnk »

biztos wrote: post #769
rnk wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Used to be on the list: reusable rockets, reasonably priced electric cars with charging infrastructure, rapid development of new vaccines with direct genetic engineering mechanisms.

Pocket supercomputers, meat-like fake meat, addictive virtual dystopias, two-way wrist radios…

What's the addictive virtual dystopia? Qanon, Facebook?

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#797

Post by GavinMcG »

mannykannot wrote: post #129
GavinMcG wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's entirely disputable as evidenced by this conversation. It's also an incredible waste of time to argue over definitions. They're always disputable because they always arise in response to two people using a word differently. Maybe they're wrong and you're right, or maybe others also use the word that way—it doesn't matter. Humility and aiming at mutual understanding is far more worthwhile.

This issue is indeed trivial, but I don't know how, in general, we are going to achieve mutual understanding without establishing an agreed-upon semantics.

It's not possible to fix a particular semantics outside a particular time and context, and certainly not possible to do so in general.

Here, as soon as someone recognizes that the amount of energy cited is way higher or lower than would be implied by their own definition, they should 1) identify the difference ("Boil here means 'boil n kettles dry' rather than 'bring n kettles to boil'") and 2) in most cases, avoid the wasted debate by adopting the other person's language if further conversation using the concept is needed.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#798

Post by credit_guy »

brutusborn wrote: post #793
credit_guy wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> government supported research expanded it to oil and gas applications. The Government gets involved in a lot of things, but it doesn't mean its contribution is essential. For a recent example, the NIH is claiming the Moderna vaccine is due to their contribution, and sure, you'll be able to find one or a few grants here or there of a few hundred thousand dollars, but the massive investments of tens of millions of do…

You're right, but I think it was essential in this case: " His comment that “the DOE started it” refers to the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a research effort in the Appalachia Basin from 1979 that proved shale rock was rich in natural gas. The DOE-supported project tested the use of nitrogen foam to fracture shale formations, and its analysis led to a deeper understanding of natural shale fractures. George Mitchell’s…

From your link:

“The government’s role in fracking’s development was important, but not so important that it eclipses the effort and investment of private industry”

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#799

Post by RustyConsul »

px43 wrote: post #385
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…

The insane thing that people should realize about the 20T CFS test back in September was that it was them completing the first of 18 coils, and it performed incredibly well. The secret sauce is better high temperature superconductors, and the ridiculous magnets you can build with them. They're pretty much putting these coils together as quickly as they can accumulate the HTSC wiring, and once they have all 18, they b…

Shows how much progress begets progress.

There was alot of debate about spending so much money on the large hydron collider when there was other social programs the money could be spent on instead of probing the fundamental nature of the universe.

LHC actually paved the way for commercial production of novel superconductors and magnets, leading in some way to helping fusion become a reality. In my opinion, Fusion and solving death should be my generations guiding star. (i'm 26)

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#800

Post by WillPostForFood »

willis936 wrote: post #755
WillPostForFood wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has gotta be one of the most important investments for humanity and our planet. If you think climate change is an existential threat, we should divert fusion research money into immediate construction of traditional nuclear power plants.

Divert a puff of dust? Why not divert the deluge that is fossil fuel subsidies or defense budget?

sure! There was $6.82 trillion in government spending in the US last year(defense was just over 10%). You could just redirect 1% and fully finance 10 new nuclear plants a year. But it is easier than that, the government could simply guarantee loans for any state or power company that wants to build. Make a model plant design that can be reproduced to reduce costs.

The main point is, if you aren't taking nuclear power seriously, you really aren't taking climate change seriously. Subsidizing Teslas for rich Californians is metaphorically rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Post reply on HN