More invested in nuclear fusion in last 12 months than past decade • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by godelski » Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 2:03 AM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #200

acidburnNSA wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Groan here we go again. > Oh, yeah, just fine, not a hitch: Now show me list of the 8 million people who die per year from air pollution. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution > The solution being: Ignore it, I guess? I mentioned the solutions but didn't provide a link. here you go. https://www.posiva.fi/en/index.html > And we fight wars for peace too. See the literature https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh050…

> Groan here we go again. Yeah, we do with more pro-nuclear propaganda and outright falsehoods (again). > Now show me list of the 8 million people who die per year from air pollution. No, it doesn't. Here's the exact quote from your source: > The combined effects of ambient air pollution and household air pollution is associated with 7 million premature deaths annually. Not "die from" but "is associated with". What d…

> I swear nuclear fan boys are just as delusional as climate deniers.

Just an FYI, acidburn is a reactor scientist. It feels a bit silly to call them a "fanboy". Also, I can verify they care deeply about climate change.

I'm also not personally actually aware of any nuclear fan boys or scientists that are climate deniers. They just argue "nuclear + renewables" vs "renewables". Why's that so hard to get? They aren't arguing for coal, oil, or natural gas like climate deniers do.

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

#272

Post by pfdietz » Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 2:05 AM UTC

acidburnNSA wrote: post #269

joak wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about non-DT fusion? Helion, funded by Sam Altman, is doing DD/DHe3 fusion. Non-thermal fusion with direct energy conversion. They are attempting net electricity for 2024.

Considering how much less likely the non-DT reactions are than DT ones from a nuclear physics perspective at reasonable plasma temperature, I'd say it's an extra long shot. We'd expect the easy reactions to be done first, followed by the much harder ones. Every advanced anything company says net electricity by 2024. I'm not holding my breath. I'd be thrilled to be wrong.

If the physics issues were the only ones facing fusion, you'd be making a good argument there.

But after the physics comes engineering. Helion's approach is to be more aggressive on the physics in order to greatly ease the grave engineering issues that face DT reactors. I consider these latter issues to be so serious that, overall, I rate Helion as less of a long shot at achieving practical fusion than any of the DT schemes.

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

#273

Post by godelski » Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 2:12 AM UTC

acidburnNSA wrote: post #268

godelski wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don't understand why we can't do both. I don't think this has to be framed as a zero sum problem (I think way too many issues are naively framed that way). With reference to the article, the funding levels over the past decade (globally) were roughly $200m/yr. That's really nothing in terms of government money and well within the realm that just the US could sustain such an effort alone. It would be rough…

Sure, that's a good and fair point. I shouldn't say I oppose fusion R&D. I feel more like we should be more focused on deploying 100s of serialized LWR fission plants right now alongside all the wind/solar/batteries/hydro to solve climate change, while also investing R&D into things like advanced fission and fusion, and geothermal. There's certainly an under-investment in low carbon energy tech in general compared to…

Yeah, then we're on the same page.

But one note, I don't think fusion has the same uphill battle that fission does. You mentioned that the fission industry just hasn't been able to properly demonstrate what they can do, but I don't think this is entirely it. We do have to consider the decades worth of campaigning and lobbying by coal and gas that went after nuclear. That these campaigns even infiltrated the biggest green lobbying groups: Sierra Nevada and Green Peace. Fusion doesn't have this same battle to overcome. I'm in the state just south of you and we're very pro green, but our green politicians still talk about fission and "the dangers." Hanford is still discussed with a lot of fervor. Such history and momentum doesn't exist with fusion other than "20 years away." I understand why a lot of people have effectively given up and why a lot of climate scientists don't bring it up, but will admit that they aren't against fission (usually with that precise wording). Honestly, I think it is more on the climate scientists at this point to be vocal about it.

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

#274

Post by pyuser583 » Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 2:14 AM UTC

freetime2 wrote: post #177

mwint wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waste problem - drive through the US state of Nevada. There’s nothing for hundreds of miles. You could likely just throw the waste out of an airplane over Nevada and be more or less fine. With containment techniques combined with the ridiculous amount of uninhabited desert the US has, this is a non issue.

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…

> political problem

But that was the problem with Yucca - it was chosen exclusively for its “scientific” value - remoteness. They didn’t event take transportation costs into account.

If you start with the political aspects, it becomes really, really easy to solve.

How many towns and cities are there with plants shutting down? How many with a history of military and nuclear facilities?

I know one town in particular that is trying to specialize in nuclear work. They have consultants, training programs, etc. Why not call them?

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

#275

Post by godelski » Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 2:15 AM UTC

freetime2 wrote: post #177

mwint wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waste problem - drive through the US state of Nevada. There’s nothing for hundreds of miles. You could likely just throw the waste out of an airplane over Nevada and be more or less fine. With containment techniques combined with the ridiculous amount of uninhabited desert the US has, this is a non issue.

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…

It failed for more than political reasons. Long term repositories are pretty complex and have extremely unique problems to resolve (such as communicating with intelligent lifeforms that may not recognize our danger symbols). Just see all that went into the long term seed storage buildings. But really, we've learned enough in the last (almost) century to learn that we probably don't need long term repositories.

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

#276

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 2:18 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #259

acidburnNSA wrote: post #153

But 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…

Honestly, I don't understand why we can't do both. I don't think this has to be framed as a zero sum problem (I think way too many issues are naively framed that way). With reference to the article, the funding levels over the past decade (globally) were roughly $200m/yr. That's really nothing in terms of government money and well within the realm that just the US could sustain such an effort alone. It would be rough…

[deleted]

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

#277

Post by smallnamespace » Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 2:19 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #273

acidburnNSA wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's a good and fair point. I shouldn't say I oppose fusion R&D. I feel more like we should be more focused on deploying 100s of serialized LWR fission plants right now alongside all the wind/solar/batteries/hydro to solve climate change, while also investing R&D into things like advanced fission and fusion, and geothermal. There's certainly an under-investment in low carbon energy tech in general compared to…

Yeah, then we're on the same page. But one note, I don't think fusion has the same uphill battle that fission does. You mentioned that the fission industry just hasn't been able to properly demonstrate what they can do, but I don't think this is entirely it. We do have to consider the decades worth of campaigning and lobbying by coal and gas that went after nuclear. That these campaigns even infiltrated the biggest g…

People are scared of the word nuclear, and that applies to fusion as well.

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

#278

Post by pyuser583 » Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 2:19 AM UTC

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #192

freetime2 wrote: post #177

Earlier 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.

The oil business deals with NIMBYs by making it worth their while. If oils is found on your land, you get lots of cash. “Beverly Hillbilly’s”.

Treat nuclear the same way. Don’t ask towns to host nuclear facilities out of the goodness of their hearts. Make it worth their while.

If nuclear power starts raising real estate value, the NIMBYs shut up.

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

#279

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 2:20 AM UTC

tejohnso wrote: post #225

acidburnNSA wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relevan…

[deleted]

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

#280

Post by deltasevennine » Sun, Jul 24, 2022, 2:21 AM UTC

acidburnNSA wrote: post #153

But 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…

The main reason is because fission isn't cool anymore. Been there, done that.... Fusion is still super cool with all the big devices they're building.