Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade

growthbusiness.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 686 posts

Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade

#61

Post by paconbork »

sacrosancty wrote: post #38
Digital28 wrote: post #2

This is great news. That said, what the literal fuck -- we've previously been investing 1/850,000th of global GDP in one of 4-5 truly promising energy technologies while the world burns before our eyes?

Fusion isn't a silver bullet even if it works. If it costs more than solar+battery then it's worthless.

One advantage of other technologies over solar is space efficiency. Obviously we're not physically lacking in space to install solar, but when even solar farms installed in the desert can be shut down by "climate activists" [1], then we really need all the help we can get

[1] https://apnews.com/article/technology-government-and-politic...

Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade

#62

Post by Digital28 »

Teever wrote: post #43
sacrosancty wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fusion isn't a silver bullet even if it works. If it costs more than solar+battery then it's worthless.

Not at all. There will always be places where solar+battery isn't viable. Northern Canada and Alaska come to mind.

Don't forget that we're perpetually one temper tantrum away from nuclear winter now, which would cripple all solar infrastructure for years. I'm actually a little surprised the DoD hasn't deeply invested in fusion for this reason alone.

Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade

#63

Post by the-smug-one »

throwaway71271 wrote: post #47
barkingcat wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the profits in 1 year from silicon valley can solve world hunger by buying every single man woman child 3 meals a day, every day.

700 million people live in poverty 3 meals per day, 5$ per meal for 365 days is 3,832,500,000,000$

Five bucks? 1kg of beans in Sweden is like 3 bucks.

Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade

#64

Post by Ekaros »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #58
grej wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally disagree. Solar + battery will never match the energy density of fusion.

Solar is basically indirect fusion.

So is all other energy production methods we use... Apart from some fraction of geothermal.

Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade

#66

Post by DeIonizedPlasma »

rjmunro wrote: post #41

> There was also a breakthrough in late 2021, when researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) facility in Oxford managed to release a record-breaking 59 megajoules of fusion 59 megajoules in useful units is 16kWh, less than 2 days use of my house. That's the biggest fusion reaction ever.

59MJ over the short period of 7s, equivalent to 8.5 MW (https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3722). A research reactor (not built to be a power plant) that is still capable of powering over 20,000 households while running isn't really as underwhelming as you seem to imply it is.

Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade

#67

Post by otikik »

sacrosancty wrote: post #38
Digital28 wrote: post #2

This is great news. That said, what the literal fuck -- we've previously been investing 1/850,000th of global GDP in one of 4-5 truly promising energy technologies while the world burns before our eyes?

Fusion isn't a silver bullet even if it works. If it costs more than solar+battery then it's worthless.

I agree the cost is important. I disagree in the breaking point at witch it’s “not worth it”. To me, assuming our battery tech doesn’t find a similar breakthrough before, if fusion reaches one order of magnitude above the cost of solar, it is worth it, as a backup. Better to have it and use it when there’s clouds instead of coal or gas

Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade

#68

Post by boomskats »

paconbork wrote: post #61
sacrosancty wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fusion isn't a silver bullet even if it works. If it costs more than solar+battery then it's worthless.

One advantage of other technologies over solar is space efficiency. Obviously we're not physically lacking in space to install solar, but when even solar farms installed in the desert can be shut down by "climate activists" [1], then we really need all the help we can get [1] https://apnews.com/article/technology-government-and-politic...

The article you linked to states this as the reason for the project being scrapped:

> But a group of residents organized as “Save Our Mesa” argued such a large installation would be an eyesore and could curtail the area’s popular recreational activities — biking, ATVs and skydiving — and deter tourists from visiting sculptor Michael Heizer’s land installation, “Double Negative.”

I also searched the page and the word 'climate' doesn't appear even once. Why do you consider this to be an example of 'climate activists' shutting down a solar farm project, and do you have any other (actual) examples of it happening?

Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade

#69

Post by ambrozk »

felixmeziere wrote: post #37
greenthrow wrote: post #5

I don't believe the hype. From what I can see fusion still isn't anywhere near being a viable source of energy, other than in the form or solar power.

Yes, it will be for the second half of this century, if we make it there. Side comment: fusion can be seen as a solution to many of our worst problems. But another way to see it is that without a complete change in what societies value and how they act (i.e. a cultural/philosophical/storytelling change), fusion is just going to increase the rate at which we are transforming this planet into a giant pile of garbage, w…

I don't know what makes you so so confident about your prediction, and what you've written about fusion's relationship to waste is, I'm pretty sure, inaccurate.

Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade

#70

Post by willis936 »

epicureanideal wrote: post #22
ianburrell wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

REBCO high-temperature superconductors have potentially changed the game. They can support stronger fields which means smaller devices for same confinement. Commercial production seems to only started in the last decade. MIT's research, spun out as CFS, may be prompting other startups.

Is there any fundamental limit we’re hitting on magnetic fields or might we see another 10-100x increase in field strength in the future?

It would be shocking if HTS manufacturing research did anything other than accelerate. If there are fundamental physical limits to run in to then they are very far away. This is deep in the engineering limited area. How much abuse from strain and radiation can your HTS handle? The better your answer at a cheaper cost, the smaller and more powerful of a machine you enable. Humans know how to make pretty strong steel, so the superstructure won't be a limiting factor for a while if ever. Making HTS tapes and divertors that can handle what we ask of them are the material challenges. There is room to be clever with physics to lessen the divertor problem.
Post reply on HN