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

281–290 of 686 posts

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

#281

Post by miles »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #209
dmead wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They were bad, but just bad enough to roll over and give up on fission. While Chernobyl killed people from radiation (around 50, with a hotly debated number between 0 and 4000 from long term effects), TMI and Fukushima did not. We have only directly amd definitively linked about 50 deaths to radiation released in commercial fission accidents. It's like a really bad bus crash. And that doesnt even count the social and…

> While Chernobyl killed people from radiation (around 50, with a hotly debated number between 0 and 4000 from long term effects), TMI and Fukushima did not.

Japan confirms first Fukushima worker death from radiation https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45423575

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

#282

Post by dragonwriter »

pyuser583 wrote: post #278
Cupertino95014 wrote: post #192

Earlier 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.

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.

> 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.

The nuclear industry doesn't generate the money for that kind of lubrication; they demand more subsidies and immunities than they already have to build anything as it is.

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

#283

Post by acidburnNSA »

deltasevennine wrote: post #280
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.

You're probably right that fission isn't considered cool anymore. I guess my heartburn is in that it most definitely should be.

I guess most people don't appreciate the relatively tiny fission plant workhorses producing >50% of all zero-carbon electricity in the USA.

At least we have nuclear tiktok influencers nowadays!

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

#284

Post by pyuser583 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #282
pyuser583 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. The nuclear industry doesn't generate the money for that kind of lubrication; they demand more subsidies and immunities than they already have to build anything as it is.

The Department of Defense doesn’t generate cash, but people love having those bases nearby.

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

#285

Post by pfdietz »

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?

60% of the mass of the ARC reactor is the steel support structure to resist JxB forces. A magnetic field 10-100x higher would exert such strong forces (magnetic pressure scales as B^2) that no material could resist them. So: strength of materials.

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

#286

Post by 8bitsrule »

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…

> It runs 24/7 on a tiny land and material footprint.

How much cooling water does it use? Who'll want to drink it? How much waterwill 'lots more regular old LWR fission reactors' need, and where will it come from? Oh, and let's see the hands of those who want one in their back yard. 'Whoops'.

> It's way easier. It has been working fine since the 1950s.

Gosh, I never heard 'fine' used in that way before. I could paste in a list of dozens of failures, leaks (including tritium), accidents (public and hushed-up). Look away from San Onofre, that was just a one-time expense. Why, I'd even bet it will continue to be "safe, clean, and too cheap to meter", guys. /s

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

#287

Post by DominoTree »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #283
deltasevennine wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're probably right that fission isn't considered cool anymore. I guess my heartburn is in that it most definitely should be. I guess most people don't appreciate the relatively tiny fission plant workhorses producing >50% of all zero-carbon electricity in the USA. At least we have nuclear tiktok influencers nowadays!

I feel like the primary reason it's not cool these days is because significant new developments are rare because it's pretty-much been figured out and it basically just works with minimal downsides, and folks think that light water reactors are all the same

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

#288

Post by GeekyBear »

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…

> For example, there are leaks of tiny amounts of tritium at some fission plants and people lose their minds.

If a fusion reactor loses power, fusion ceases. The reactor shuts down.

If a fission reactor loses power, fission continues. A reactor that cannot be cooled melts down.

I don't think people will be as wary when fail safe reactor designs come off the drawing board and are in use long enough to have their own track record.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/08/02/158134/fail-safe...

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

#289

Post by JohnBooty »

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…

    Honestly, I think it is more on the climate 
    scientists at this point to be vocal about it.
I think you hit the nail on the head here.

It's understandable that science-illiterate, climate change-denier types fear fission. The fossil fuel industry has done an excellent job percolating their pro fossil-fuel agenda and fomenting fear of the unknown. This is the unavoidable enemy.

The only way to counter this would be for green types (Greenpeace, etc, as you say) and climate scientists to unite and promote fission. I do not think this is remotely likely, but it is the only thing that would remotely stand a chance of countering the fossil fuel industry in the battle for public mindset and votes. I would be absolutely stunned if this happened before billions are displaced due to fossil fuel-caused climate change, and I actually don't think it will happen even then. The status quo will continue as long as the fossil fuel companies remain rich... so, basically until civilizational collapse.

Simply put, fission got an extremely raw deal. It was stabbed in the back and buried by the people who should have supported it, based on their stated goals and beliefs.

Nothing can survive that.

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

#290

Post by JohnBooty »

8bitsrule wrote: post #286
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…

> It runs 24/7 on a tiny land and material footprint. How much cooling water does it use? Who'll want to drink it? How much waterwill 'lots more regular old LWR fission reactors' need, and where will it come from? Oh, and let's see the hands of those who want one in their back yard. 'Whoops'. > It's way easier. It has been working fine since the 1950s. Gosh, I never heard 'fine' used in that way before. I could paste…

    and let's see the hands of those who want one in their back yard. 'Whoops'
Me. Actually I've already lived in the back yard of one. Extremely populous suburb of a major American city.

Apparently lots of people don't mind having one in their back yard.

Post reply on HN