The only true form of green energy other than geothermal.
fission, solar, wind, waterfall energy all have their own negative environmental impacts
More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
221–230 of 686 posts
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
All you're saying here is, "people object to it." Or is there something more substantive? > in a manner that is satisfying to the residents of the state where it is being disposed No, that is basically NIMBY. Of course some residents won't like nuclear waste buried underground, 100 miles from them in a place they'll never go and where no one lives. I don't know how to not sound callous about that.
Yes I am basically saying people object to it. And in a democracy that’s a fairly important detail that you can’t just write off as a “non issue”.
> Yes I am basically saying people object to it. And in a democracy that’s a fairly important detail that you can’t just write off as a “non issue”.
We do this all the time.
People object to living next to the airport. They object to new roads. They object to schools being built, rail lines, bus stops, even hospitals.
Yet, we weigh the pros for society against the cons for specific people. That's why we have a country with any infrastructure. If we simply gave in whenever someone said no, we would all be dead in an empty field.
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> fusion is just going to increase the rate at which we are transforming this planet into a giant pile of garbage Thank you for saying this. Unlimited almost-free energy makes energy-saving measures moot, including building insulation. People would heat or cool even open spaces with little regard for the environment. And all the heat is eventually released into the atmosphere. Consumerism would be supercharged as wel…
Fusion will not produce "almost free" power.
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#224The article doesn't seem to mention why exactly but I'm guessing it's some combination of 1) visible climate change (extreme heat, wildfires, drought, etc.) so people want better energy sources and 2) the mayhem Russia started seeing as it is one of the bigger energy providers. Or has there been anything else?
The taste of immense profit is in the air. In the minds of potential investors, fusion is no longer a "lol maybe in 50 years" technology. Advances in magnetic modeling and magnet technology have resulted in cheaper, easier-to-develop alternatives to the classic Tokamak. Timelines are now believably "this decade" for demonstration reactors. Energy production/harvesting is a foundational element of our civilization. Li…
If nuclear fusion were ever developed, I imagine the government would seek to seize its patent protection under the Invention Secrecy Act.
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long will the fuel last? Sabine Hossenfelder references studies in which we have enough Uranium for 50 years max. 6:08 here: https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k
Uranium and thorium fuel on earth can make 100% of today's primary energy for about 4 billion years, using breeder reactors, which were proven in 1952 near Arco Idaho at the Experimental Breeder Reactor 1. Writeup explaining this with lots of actual scientific references at the bottom here: https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-... People who say uranium will last 50 years either aren't aware of…
This is so depressing. It's nearly impossible to form a confident opinion these days without a ton of effort. I heard Sabine, I said to myself...makes sense...and it looks like she's put a lot of work into understanding all of this, and she is a professional. So that was it.
Now you're saying she's wrong. Very wrong. And you're a nuclear reactor physicist (thanks for comment!) Am I going to go read all of the relevant references for myself and study the state of the art well enough to understand it all? No, I'm not because I'm not a policy maker or advisor.
I feel like there is a legitimate problem with science communication, especially where it can influence government policy.
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#226But where are the fusion neutrons? (See Voodoo Fusion [1]) [1] https://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0382v1.pdf I'm a professional fission guy. I started out in fusion and switched to advanced fission. These days I don't see why we don't just build lots more regular old LWR fission reactors. Imagining that somehow fusion is going to a) work, b) be cheap (fuel cost is only 5% of total nuclear fission cost so who cares), and c) n…
Is it wise to write off safety issues? Chernobyl, Fukushima and three mile island all seem pretty bad. There is also the Robert Heinlein story "Blowups happen". I'm just not understanding how this can all be hand waved away.
It's not hand-waving. We've got got what, close to a billion fission reactor-hours worth of data? Perhaps more? We know exactly how safe they are.
Also: "safety issues?" Useless to talk about safety issues in a vacuum. Safety issues compared to what?
- Fossil fuels, which are literally guaranteed to fry this planet?
- Wind, water, solar? Great but not sufficient and/or feasible in all locales.
- An imaginary energy source with zero downsides? Let us know once you work out the details.
You point to Fukushima, thanks to which a region was rendered uninhabitable. I point to climate change caused by fossil fuel, thanks to which large swathes of the planet will soon be uninhabitable. I know which one I prefer. I'd prefer ten or a hundred Fukushimas in exchange for what's about to happen to our planet in the coming decades.
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#227But where are the fusion neutrons? (See Voodoo Fusion [1]) [1] https://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0382v1.pdf I'm a professional fission guy. I started out in fusion and switched to advanced fission. These days I don't see why we don't just build lots more regular old LWR fission reactors. Imagining that somehow fusion is going to a) work, b) be cheap (fuel cost is only 5% of total nuclear fission cost so who cares), and c) n…
This was a great comment and very helpful. I think it’s all a PR issue. The public doesn’t really understand and there are a lot of lobbyists pushing every other kind of energy.
"There is a lot of money to be made from implement the wrong solution, as long as you are not part of the problem."
* Adapted from a consultant proverb
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#228I 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…
> fusion is just going to increase the rate at which we are transforming this planet into a giant pile of garbage
That rate does not scale negatively with energy prices. It scales positively with population, in the West.
We could just accelerate towards stagnant global population growth. Improving economies and access to contraceptives in poor nations could do that. Everybody wins, except the very richest.
Coercing the population to stop consuming is a non-starter. We could also create stronger incentives and regulations surrounding waste. There are lots of new biodegradable tech companies now, to replace plastics, for instance.
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already tried this in Nevada and failed for political reasons [1]. Dumping nuclear waste in the desert may be a non issue to you (and to me as well), but to a lot of people - particularly people who actually live in Nevada - it is a very serious issue. The question of how to dispose of nuclear waste - in a manner that is satisfying to the residents of the state where it is being disposed - remains an unsolved is…
All you're saying here is, "people object to it." Or is there something more substantive? > in a manner that is satisfying to the residents of the state where it is being disposed No, that is basically NIMBY. Of course some residents won't like nuclear waste buried underground, 100 miles from them in a place they'll never go and where no one lives. I don't know how to not sound callous about that.
While you may think it unfair to compare, the 3 coal slurry spills (from power plants) which happened in the US to date had ranges of impact on the order of hundreds of miles and included impacts to drinking water.
I have little doubt the NIMBY's are recalling one or more of these incidents.
And this is just limiting the scope to power plant related waste. If you talk about industry in general you have many decades of weird cancers and nonpotable tap water in various parts of the country. The lack of trust comes from precedent.
Re: More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it isn't many times stronger than sunlight, just build more solar panels. If it is many times stronger than sunlight, that's pretty dangerous!
MW power transmission is about 85% efficient at the receiving end. Solar is much lower than that.
Solar is much lower than that, but it has the advantage of being doable on the ground.