Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

nature.com

81–90 of 282 posts

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#81

Excellent news, we need this so badly, especially now in Europe with Germany shutting down its nuclear (fission) plants and NS2 being cancelled. It's astonishing to me that the world isn't pulling out all the stops on fusion development, something like the space race or Manhattan project. Unfortunately, last I heard ITER building has halted: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2022/02/21/french-regulator-h...

What we should have actually done is build new and more fission reactors decades ago and not shut the current once down.

That how we could have solved the while issue decades ago.

France had green energy for literally 40 years and nobody cares. Because 'nuke = evil' attitude, specially in Germany.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#82
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, in fact, grow crops under solar. And they yield more that way. The panels do not cover every square inch of farm; 50% is common. Most plants, including the most productive crops, will only do a certain maximum of photosynthesis in a day; insolation after that just adds heat stress.

It can be done, but its not currently and there is legitimate problems with it due to the logistics of existing farm machinery. For example the structure required to position solar panels in a way that would enable existing combine harvesters or sprayers to continue to work is unlikely to be feasible. It would be a different way of farming, back towards smaller machinery. So it may be possible but I don't see it happ…

The problems to solve are all in the realm of mechanical and small-scale civil engineering, the sort we have been used to solving for a century or two, routinely.

Certainly pasture and row crops most easily coexist with elevated solar, but there is a lot of pasture. The yield benefits for row crops are attractive, though. In water-stressed areas, the reduced irrigation need might be the main benefit, but they all add up.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#83
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see the European Green movement embracing anything that has "nuclear" in it.

I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary: myself. In the short and medium term, it's obvious that wind and solar are going to help us avoid the worst of the climate crisis. In the long term, we might need something more to reverse climate change. Existing nuclear fission energy capacity might be a short term stopgap. It's just clearly not sustainable because inherently too risky: - military/terror/nuclear proliferat…

So much misconceptions in this opinion. It seems you dupped by the anti-nuclear lobby and the pro-fusion lobby.

Non of the things you suggest are even remotely true.

- Fusion are as big a proliferation risk, and existing fusion reactors and GenIV reactors that are being built are very small proliferation risk.

- Fusion would be equally uninsurable. Practically speaking a accident that leaves the exclusion zone is less likely with a modern GenIV reactor that are currently in regulatory approval.

- Nuclear waste of modern reactors (and past reactors) can be broken down burned up. The outcome is waste that needs only a few 100 years of storage and isn't really all dangerous in that time. Its not actually a big practical issue. No deep Geo-1000000 year storage needed.

- Literally every country has practically unlimited thorium in the ground. Isolating thorium pretty easy and its a by product of rare earth mining. Non supply of fertile material is a non issue. So once you have actual nuclear reactors running there is no chance of supply issue.

And all of this could have been done 40+ years ago as well. Fusion is not needed.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#84
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was with previous designs of fusion reactors. Read about proposed Ark and currently constructing Spark reactors. By using stronger superconductive magnets it was possible to reduce the size of the plant by order of magnitude. Spark even has a chance to get to Q>1 before ITER and it’s chamber is less than 2m in diameter. Plus it is possible to replace its parts without disassembling the whole reactor. [1] - https…

Compare that to a simple molten salt fission reactor. It will simply never be cheaper.

Molten solt reactors do not solve the problem of nuclear waste. It is very expensive to deal with it as it has to be stored for hundreds of years unless some technology would appear to separate that cheaply. Fusion produce like order of magnitude less radioactive waste which will be short-lived.

Plus a fusion plant can be very quick to start and shutdown or throttle down which is very useful for base load.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#85

Fusion has no practice reason to exist compare to advanced fission. The improvements in energy density are not really relevant factor at that scale, meaning the difference from oil to fission, and oil to fusion doesn't really gain you much. Fusion fuel cost over the long term is likely more expensive then a fission fast breeder (not to mention a potential of thorium thermal breeder). Is a fusion reactor going to be c…

> this problem and issue that has very viable practical solutions and storage for a few hundred years is viable.

So you mean to say that there is no practical reason for fusion power to exist for as long as you ignore the long term consequences of what you're doing?

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#86
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fission reactors are today not competitive, and get less competitive by the day No, we are just incompetent idiots. This has nothing to do with fissions and everything to do with degradation of contruction and practical egnineering skills - now it takes 30 years and 100 billion dollars to make a small railway in California. Victorian England or China could do this without much trouble. The english-speaking western…

It is much simpler than that: fission is mature tech; its cost is not on the way down. Solar costs are still in free fall, wind almost as much so. The cheaper those get, the less competitive fission gets, just standing still. The corruption tax on fission projects just exacerbates its structural problem.

most of that cost is politically based not technical

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#87

Fusion has no practice reason to exist compare to advanced fission. The improvements in energy density are not really relevant factor at that scale, meaning the difference from oil to fission, and oil to fusion doesn't really gain you much. Fusion fuel cost over the long term is likely more expensive then a fission fast breeder (not to mention a potential of thorium thermal breeder). Is a fusion reactor going to be c…

Isn't fusion safer? If fusion was a viable option for countries that are phasing out fission like Germany then it could solve a lot of problems especially decreasing reliance on gas

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#88
post #73
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because money is fungible. A dollar spent on fusion is a dollar not spent on solar panels or turbines that would displace fossil fuels immediately. And, it would be a dollar wasted, because the fusion work will never produce any commercially competitive power, anyway. So, it is a choice between buying something that contributes to a solution, or just pissing it away.

> A dollar spent on fusion is a dollar not spent on solar panels or turbines that would displace fossil fuels immediately I see this claim a lot, but what makes this true? Why would money allocation be so inelastic, and why can't it become flexible?

Because money, in the end, is just a proxy for labor, energy, land and raw materials. One can print money, but cannot print factors of production

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#89
post #55

Fusion is "sensational" science Much like AGI, "room temperature superconductors", "Mars colonization" and so on - the science is intense, the reporting hyped up and every tiny step will continue to be posted again and again as if something revolution happened. Meanwhile the world needs to many more nuclear reactors pronto if at all we stand a chance of climate change mitigation We need better web security and privac…

If averting climate disruption depended on fission or fusion, we would be doomed. Fortunately, solar and wind are up to the task.

We would be doomed? Somebody should have told France who had a clean green grid 40 years ago.

If everybody had simply done nuclear we would be 10000x better of now.

The false promise of solar/wind held up by fossil-fuel and anti-nuclear people prevented green energy grids for literally decades.

If anything we are doomed because it took so long to actually bring solar/wind practically into being.

If we invested in nuclear and its advanced reactors decades ago, like we did in the 60s/70s we would also have high temperature reactors that could do things like provide industrial heat for chemical processes such as water desalinization, synthetic fuel production and so on.

You could even do very high temperature reactors if you wanted to decarbonize even chemical process that take 1000C without going threw inefficient electricity production and heat generation.

But coal plants were cheaper to build and that's why id didn't happen. Imagine a world where the US had build 100s of nuclear plants. The amount of nuclear engineers that would exists, the amount of knowledge and innovation that such an industry could have.

The problem is in the 70s what mattered was price, that coal plants were horrible to human and the environments was not considered.

So please explain why depending on fission would doom anybody. Germany could have replicated what France did in the 70s and simply started to build nuclear reactors when they started their green revolution 20 decades ago. In fact had Germany done so they would like be closer to fully de-carbonized now.

Literally any country that wants to be 100% green can right now call South Korea and order X reactors and within 10 years all but the largest industrial nations in the world could be 100% green power.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#90
post #69
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was with previous designs of fusion reactors. Read about proposed Ark and currently constructing Spark reactors. By using stronger superconductive magnets it was possible to reduce the size of the plant by order of magnitude. Spark even has a chance to get to Q>1 before ITER and it’s chamber is less than 2m in diameter. Plus it is possible to replace its parts without disassembling the whole reactor. [1] - https…

That might be nice if they had solutions to the other problems not addressed (see above). But operating it will necessarily still be enormously more expensive than solar or wind, which cost practically nothing. Somebody with one leg can do a lot better in a race than somebody with none, but that is not the measure to consider when the competition is with two-legged runners. (Hint: they win.)

In Europe after the last autumn when for months there were little wind and cloudy sky there is a realization that energy based purely on renewables will require much bigger storage and much more solar or at least significantly more expensive solar that works under clouds. Doable, but cost is non-trivial.

So if any of fusion startups can make operating plant within the next 20 years, it can be used. But if that takes longer, then I agree that large-scale fusion will not happen.

Post reply on HN