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

801–810 of 827 posts

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#801

Post by hnfong »

Xixi wrote: post #656
mcv wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to like the idea of fusion energy, but practical application has always seemed to be 40 years in the future, and it's starting to sound more like 60 years now. I hope it will be possible some day, but it's not going to help with out energy needs in our lifetime. (Unless that longevity research is going to pay off, I guess.)

It took more than 300 years to build the cathedral [1] in my home town (albeit with a 60-year pause in the middle). So indeed it might take another 4 or 5 generations to master nuclear fusion, but I see no issue with that. We should not shy away from starting projects that we won't see any benefit in our lifetime. But of course, it also means that we should not rely on nuclear fusion being available in the short term…

The linear model of time estimates here work well for cathedrals but not necessarily for scientific and engineering advancements.

For a Cathedral, you have a general idea of how long it's going to take (at least finite) and know that every piece of material added onto the structure is going to move it closer to the end goal.

For things like fusion, anything beyond say 20 years is basically a bullsh_t speculative guess that sounds better than "we don't really know whether this will even work out in the end". It doesn't really matter whether it's 30 or 60. The real question is whether the number is finite or infinite.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#802

Post by thehappypm »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #740
thehappypm wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no piece of the Tomamak individually that can’t be miniaturized or benefit from economies of scale. It doesn’t require exotic fuel like nuclear fission reactors do. It doesn’t need gigantic quantities of space and material like wind and solar. It doesn’t have high up front engineering costs like geothermal. One day a tokamak might be an off the shelf industrial purchase, maybe akin to an MRI machine.

"It doesn’t have high up front engineering costs like geothermal." You are commenting on an article about how scientists had to build a reactor out of berillium and tungsten. Have you ever touched those materials? Is there any berillium in your car, or your washing machine? If you go around your neighbourhood looking for someone who can weld or work tungsten, will you find anyone? Can you buy a tool on amazon that wi…

You’re missing the point a little bit. No one is arguing that solar is going to be more expensive than fusion. The point is that fusion is about as far fetched as a lot of technology seem at first. Like microprocessors (billions of transistors?) or medical imaging (put a human into a giant magnetic field to see inside them) or internal combustion engines.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#803

Post by mcculley »

RyEgswuCsn wrote: post #795
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.

That’s a good point.

But I still wonder what happens when we can cheaply generate orders of magnitude more energy. I don’t see how we would be stopped from causing problems with it.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#804

Post by RyEgswuCsn »

mcculley wrote: post #803
RyEgswuCsn wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s a good point. But I still wonder what happens when we can cheaply generate orders of magnitude more energy. I don’t see how we would be stopped from causing problems with it.

If fusion is achieved I guess we can at least start to remove carbon from the atmosphere by spending generous amount of energy.

Though I do agree with you that once human mastered nuclear fusion, it will only be a matter of time before we have to start worrying about overheating our planet. A potentially Sci-Fi solution would be to build planet-scale radiators to disseminate the waste heat.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#805

Post by advisedwang »

ketozhang wrote: post #708
ketozhang wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the journalist is calculating load capacity. A 1500A @120V kettle requires 0.18 MW. Rounding up, 60 kettles requires 12 MW. It's not how much water you can boil, it's how many kettles you can run at the same time.

I'm way off. I meant 15A. Now I've no clue what the journalist is calculating.

They should start selling 1500A kettles though. Bring a pot of water to the boil instantly.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#806

Post by baryphonic »

tsimionescu wrote: post #749
zerobits wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone explain these timelines better? Can we throw more money at this and scale much faster? Are safety/regulation considerations the main bottleneck? This has gotta be one of the most important investments for humanity and our planet. Hard to fathom these timeline predictions in the same world where mRNA vaccines and various spacecraft have scaled in <1 year.

Fusion is still at the phase of fundamental research in some areas, while others are in a sort of "engineering research". Either way, it's actually hard to imagine fusion will ever be a promising power source, at least with any tech resembling what we know today. It is extremely complex technology living in proximity to extreme radiation bombardment and extreme temperature differences. A fusion reactor will need basi…

Not an expert at all in this area, but my understanding was that CFS' design addresses the neutron bombardment problems and the tritium breeding problems by making the reactor smaller and enveloping it in some sort of molten salt. Because the wall is smaller, they plan on being able to replace the inner wall yearly via 3D printing.

Wind & solar are fine where they make sense (i.e. windy or particularly sunny places), though solar panel production depends on rare earth metals, and wind + solar at scale require huge land areas covered with panels or turbines. Fission is fine, but is expensive and has a serious regulatory hurdle to getting safer, modern designs up and running, and produces long-lived radioactive isotopes.

Anyway, I'm interested in all of the above. Any of them are better than fossil fuels, and some scale better than others.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#807

Post by willis936 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #800
willis936 wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't argue against any of that. Fusion does not have a path to "stop climate change". We have much faster acting options we can and should pursue.

The point I take exception with is diverting funding away from fusion. Fusion has a great many benefits. I argue these benefits are existential to our society in the 100-200 year timeframe.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#808

Post by mcculley »

RyEgswuCsn wrote: post #804
mcculley wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a good point. But I still wonder what happens when we can cheaply generate orders of magnitude more energy. I don’t see how we would be stopped from causing problems with it.

If fusion is achieved I guess we can at least start to remove carbon from the atmosphere by spending generous amount of energy. Though I do agree with you that once human mastered nuclear fusion, it will only be a matter of time before we have to start worrying about overheating our planet. A potentially Sci-Fi solution would be to build planet-scale radiators to disseminate the waste heat.

I am unfortunately also pessimistic about carbon sequestration. There is a game theory problem in that it only works if we get everybody on the same page for carbon targets. If I start spending energy to sequester carbon, I remove some pressure for others to limit carbon output.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#809

Post by RyEgswuCsn »

mcculley wrote: post #808
RyEgswuCsn wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If fusion is achieved I guess we can at least start to remove carbon from the atmosphere by spending generous amount of energy. Though I do agree with you that once human mastered nuclear fusion, it will only be a matter of time before we have to start worrying about overheating our planet. A potentially Sci-Fi solution would be to build planet-scale radiators to disseminate the waste heat.

I am unfortunately also pessimistic about carbon sequestration. There is a game theory problem in that it only works if we get everybody on the same page for carbon targets. If I start spending energy to sequester carbon, I remove some pressure for others to limit carbon output.

We did fix the hole in the ozone-layer once, so there is that. But I agree, it won't be easy because generating energy from carbon sources is still going to be cheaper than building fusion plants for quite a while.

That being said, with today's social climate, I won't be surprised if countries race to do it just to boost their PR image; that would require some serious carbon-shaming though.

Re: Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy

#810

Post by brutusborn »

credit_guy wrote: post #798
brutusborn wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”

I interpreted that as meaning "don't forget private industry had an important role". This doesn't mean that the private sector could have done it alone (my interpretation of government investment being essential).

But at that stage it's semantics really.

Maybe we could ask the question: "would private industry have funded all the basic research to get to the same starting point?" I doubt it since it would not have been shown returns for many decades and had a high risk of showing no returns. But maybe they would have, who knows?

A parallel question: "would private industry have developed semiconductor transistors without WW2 research into radar systems?

Post reply on HN