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

141–150 of 686 posts

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

#141

Post by hobscoop »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #19
twarge wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. There have been no breakthroughs. The projects getting funding are just different enough to be not immediately disprovable and continue to spectacularly overpromise without solving any of the real problems. Chamber embrittlement? Nuclear waste? (activation of the apparatus by the 12 MeV fusion netrons is a lot worse than the 100 keV fission neutron.)

> have been no breakthroughs Magnet miniaturisation and CADs like the stellarator [1] refute this. With respect to waste and embrittlement, those are simpler consumables and waste products than fossil fuels and atmospheric emissions. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellarator

Yes. We're currently living through a golden age of stellarator design powered by new algorithms and optimization techniques.

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

#142

Post by tsimionescu »

toveja wrote: post #112
tsimionescu wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that these are 59MJ of energy released by the fusion reaction. No attempt was made to actually catch them. And even if they had been captured, they would not have been able to power the magnets + cooling systems used to confine the plasma. We are very very far away from actually producing even 1W of usable fusion power.

You are correct that at JET there is no tech installed to absorb the neutrons, nor will there ever be in JET, since (as pointed out above) it is a _research_ device. Current fusion devices are not nor were they ever designed to generate electricity for a grid. This is why we build ITER, and DEMO thereafter. Generating 'usable fusion power' is limited to building reactor scale experiments, which to date, has not been…

ITER is also not planning to capture the neutrons. It is only planned to produce more thermal energy than the total amount of electrical energy put in.

DEMO will be plants built independently by several nations following the research from a successful ITER. They will be the first time that any attempt is made to actually convert the fusion products into electricity. There are currently no concrete plans for any DEMO plant - those are contingent upon ITER's success.

If everything goes to plan, the first model DEMO plant would begin operation in 2051. So, as I said, we are a long way away from producing even 1W of usable electrical power from fusion.

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

#144

Post by Nition »

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…

Great point that I hadn't considered before. Like how adding more lanes to a road just creates more traffic. I hope things don't go that way but I can see it happening.

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

#145

Post by hobscoop »

whatshisface wrote: post #39
SkyMarshal wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual advances in fusion and related energy generation tech. For example, at least one startup, Helion, is developing a way to generate electricity directly from the fusion reaction and magnetic field, instead of indirectly by heating water into steam that then turns a turbine generator. The increased efficiency from that might enable it produce net electricity. And quite frankly, it's way past time that we advanced…

Magnetohydrodynamic generators were invented for coal plants 70 years or so ago but turbines are more efficient.

I thought they were ultimately limited by problems of corrosion at the electrodes?

Helion's scheme to turn fusion heat into pushing E&M fields back through their magnet to generate electricity is pretty different from a standard MHD generator.

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

#146

Post by adhesive_wombat »

orzig wrote: post #127
more_corn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Indeed, fusion has never been a certain number of years away, it's only ever been number of billions of dollars away, as projected here [1].

Though, luckily, it looks like that was a little over-pessimistic: it's not like the field has been sitting on its thumbs despite having, in terms relative to the potential, negligible funding: [2].

[1]: https://imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png

[2]: https://phys.org/news/2021-11-unveiling-steady-fusion-energy...

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

#147

Post by jason0597 »

I am genuinely surprised that there is so much interest in the comments here and excitement about fusion energy powering the future. Yet I see surprisingly few numbers or physics being discussed. Kind of disappointed for a forum that is supposedly technically-minded and able to speak mathematics.

There was this great MIT paper [1] published a while back that's still to be rebuked, talking about the serious technical challenges. Furthermore, there's Maury Markowitz's blogs that have been around for more than a decade showcasing why economically future can never work competitively on the grid [2].

Fusion is great science, it may eventually return a net positive in energy, but it has so many problems that make it impossible to use commercially.

[1]: http://orcutt.net/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Trou...

[2]: https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/why-fusion-wi...

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

#148

Post by hobscoop »

willis936 wrote: post #70
epicureanideal wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Actually, I think the strength of modern steels is a limiting factor for fusion magnets. Plasma "beta"s are only a few %, so for a few atmospheres of plasma pressure your magnetic cage needs to be like a pressure vessel that contains hundreds of atmospheres. And with large holes poked through it for access. If you look at CFS's magnet test from last summer, there's a huge amount of steel.

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

#150

Post by MaxDPS »

sva_ wrote: post #109

Something I wondered about fusion is, where does all that 'excess energy' go? I mean don't understand me wrong, it is obvious that is a much better form of energy release than all the other forms of energy production we have; but let us consider we manage to gain energy from fusion, the electricity released still releases heat, so how does it dissipate, if we have near-infitite energy, and anyone can spend as much as…

I'd imagine the excess energy goes out into space.

They key difference between nuclear and fossil fuels is the emissions each generates. Fossil fuels burn into greenhouse gasses which trap in heat. If we switch to nuclear, those greenhouse gasses won't accumulate as much.

Post reply on HN