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

121–130 of 686 posts

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

#121

Post by samhain »

toveja wrote: post #40
paul80808 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The past of fusion has been grim, but the future looks (probably) bright. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-f...

I wouldn't say the (recent) past was grim, but rather that the technology to build an _affordable_ commercial device had not yet been developed yet. We designed and built ITER at such a large size and cost (€20 billion) since high temperature superconducting magnets were not yet available. In the meantime, all of the experimental devices (JET, AUG, EAST, DIII-D, etc.,) have been gathering evidence on how to operate I…

Have you heard of MITs SPARC reactor? It’s way more interesting than ITER. It is 3x smaller, with Q greater than 10 (compared to ITERs ~10). It’s also slated to be finished -before- ITER.

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

#122

Post by champtar »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #107
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?

On one hand, you had "traditional" companies (oil, coal, gas,...) lobbying against it, and on the other hand, you had the "green" organizations lobbying (and protesting) against it.

And if you combine both hands you get Greenpeace energy

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

#123

Post by LunaSea »

Digital28 wrote: post #93
rainsford wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see viable nuclear fusion power, but the lack of more investment at the moment doesn't really seem unreasonable. As you said, there are a number of other green alternatives, including traditional nuclear fission power, that have proven they can be real alternatives to fossil fuels and that would benefit from continued investment. Unless I've missed something, nuclear fusion meanwhile has yet to demonstrat…

It's an equal level of insanity that technologies like thorium breeder reactors haven't been getting whole number percentages of first world budgets, especially considering how extremely high of a priority climate change has become and how costly the alternatives (e.g., disaster mitigation) are getting.

But climate change hasn't been a priority in most western countries (in most countries really).

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

#124

Post by bryanrasmussen »

formerkrogemp wrote: post #119
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't remember who said it but I remember reading a quote one time to the effect that the man who invented a new form of energy for the world without also inventing a new heat sink would be history's greatest monster. Not sure I agree, but does give one pause if prone to pessimism as I am.

Perhaps this was referring to humanity's use of fossil fuels?

no, fossil fuels aren't a new form of energy. The implication would be that a new form of energy would just be used with all the other forms of energy, it may also have been a new cheap form of energy in the quote, implying that we would take a cheap form of energy and overuse it so that the world burned faster.

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

#125

Post by orzig »

dtagames wrote: post #115
toveja wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say the (recent) past was grim, but rather that the technology to build an _affordable_ commercial device had not yet been developed yet. We designed and built ITER at such a large size and cost (€20 billion) since high temperature superconducting magnets were not yet available. In the meantime, all of the experimental devices (JET, AUG, EAST, DIII-D, etc.,) have been gathering evidence on how to operate I…

Doesn't IETR consume more power than it produces? Fusion (like solutions for aging fission plants and their waste products) always seems just around the corner -- yet never arrives.

For me, it was eye opening to inside its progression in terms of dollars, not years. It’s barely had the chance to get started.

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

#126

Post by kadoban »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #118
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?

I can't remember who said it but I remember reading a quote one time to the effect that the man who invented a new form of energy for the world without also inventing a new heat sink would be history's greatest monster. Not sure I agree, but does give one pause if prone to pessimism as I am.

I don't get it. Why would a new form of energy need a new heat sink?

Wouldn't any energy we can realistically generate be a drop in the bucket compared to what the Sun throws at us every second? And even if not, what would a heat sink do about it? I think I'm missing something.

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

#127

Post by orzig »

more_corn wrote: post #85
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?

What if I told you commercially viable fusion power has been 10 years away for the last 40 years? What if I told you it always will be? Investment in something that might not pay off is wise if it does, and foolish if it doesn’t.

I think the people who said “10 years away “we’re assuming it would get actual serious investment. I would argue that this is year 1

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

#128

Post by pshc »

Digital28 wrote: post #93
rainsford wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see viable nuclear fusion power, but the lack of more investment at the moment doesn't really seem unreasonable. As you said, there are a number of other green alternatives, including traditional nuclear fission power, that have proven they can be real alternatives to fossil fuels and that would benefit from continued investment. Unless I've missed something, nuclear fusion meanwhile has yet to demonstrat…

It's an equal level of insanity that technologies like thorium breeder reactors haven't been getting whole number percentages of first world budgets, especially considering how extremely high of a priority climate change has become and how costly the alternatives (e.g., disaster mitigation) are getting.

Everyone around me seems to be fixated on gas prices and bigger vehicles. It’s pure myopia.

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

#129

Post by dotnet00 »

anothernewdude wrote: post #110
borissk wrote: post #104

When all these starups fail to deliver anything of value in a few years, the investors will disappear. Commercial fusion power is such a huge challenge IMHO there are only two ways we can get there currently: ITER/DEMO (if it doesn't get overcome by bureaucracy and the members don't loose interest in funding it) or Elon Musk (who is probably the only person who can attract the top talent needed, motivate it to work d…

Musk doesn't attract talent - the wealth does that, Elon himself is a negative.

Yes, clearly that's why SpaceX was successful in an industry where the adage was "How do you become a millionaire in aviation? Start with a billion!".

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

#130

Post by ac29 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #83
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?

If you look more into it, it's not clear at all that fusion is actually a promising source of power. None of the currently contemplated technologies have any realistic chance of producing power anywhere near competitively in cost, even ignoring the huge research costs left to get there (no currently planned fusion experiment has any hope of producing more power than it consumes).

> no currently planned fusion experiment has any hope of producing more power than it consumes

ITER [1] is expected to produce more thermal energy than it consumes and is currently under construction. No electricity though.

The follow up plant, DEMO [2], should produce electricity (750MW).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOnstration_Power_Plant

Post reply on HN