Live data from Hacker News

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

growthbusiness.co.uk

381–390 of 686 posts

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

#381

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…

There are several problems with fission (probably fusion too) as I understand it:

1. Cost per MW compared to renewables (~$150 vs ~$40 and falling). Here in the UK the government is promising to subsidise this to make it viable.

2. Construction time - average is 10 years, we don’t have that long to wait.

3. Decommissioning is expensive and a long way in the future. Is that cost built into the cost per MW? How can we be sure the money will be protected, and will be enough to cover it?

4. Spent fuel. The project you mentioned isn’t complete yet, but even then it’s a huge liability to leave for future generations to manage indefinitely.

Meanwhile, renewables don’t have these problems and are available immediately. We should be building huge factories to produce wind and solar en masse.

Source for the figures: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSK...

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

#382
I love the concept of fusion from a scientific point. I’d love to see even more money put into this.

But for real world deployment, we can have decentralized systems that have an ROI of 6yrs (Solar) and 10 yrs (Wind), - i think that’s the thing we should be doubling down on NOW. [https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/145C...]

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

#383

There's a huge amount of hype in fusion these days. Companies are getting big investments just by saying "we're over unity." None of their investors will recoup any money. Getting above unity is important but it's still a very long way from systemic over unity of the entire lifecycle of the process that turns fusion into electricity on the grid. And that simply won't happen in my lifetime or most of your lifetimes. W…

I think investments are happening because recent progress in this space is indicating that this might in fact happen in the next decade or so. The cliche that fusion reactors are perpetually 30 years away, might have actually been correct up to about 20 years ago.

There are no guarantees here of course, but there are now quite a few companies acting like they are going to get their first test plants up and running in the next ten or so years. From there to commercialization is of course still a long and risky path. But it's very different once you can prove that the process works and more energy comes out then goes in.

As you say, fusion reactors will have to compete with absolutely dirt cheap solar, wind, and storage. As well as with future fission plants that may or may not become cheaper than the current state of the art (which is super expensive). Just getting things working is not going to be good enough. It will need to work cheaply.

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

#384
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sigh, this again. Induced demand is still valid economic demand, and congested roads are still being used productively. There's a reason why sane governments don't regularly "improve" roads by removing lanes.

The point I was making was precisely regarding what is considered "valid" demand. Here, the fact that you appended "economic" after it strongly suggests to me that we don't have the same definition of it.

One of the underlying assumptions of all mainstream economic theories since the XIXe century is that EVERYTHING that comes from nature is infinite and has been provided to us for free, whether it's resources, clean air, a durably nice temperature, animals etc. What has a cost is to pay people and machines to extract those things, but not the things in the first place.

Based on this assumption, we've acted as if nature was infinite and increased our rate of extraction to ridiculous heights, reaching the limits of a system that is sadly, due to the laws of physics, finite. One example : China has used in 3 years roughly as much sand for construction as the US has in the entire XXth century (btw sand is the new gold and a huge black market for it is now in place...)

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

#385

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…

She address fast-breeders and thorium in the same video: https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k?t=734 (concluding that they are too complex and expensive)

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

#386

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…

> The cost of climate change clearly far outweighs the cost of nuclear plants and waste. Um, yes until you factor in failure rates due to incompetence + natural failure. Chernobyl, look it up, massive cost, massive loss of land, death/cancer rate of all exposed nearly 100%. Until you can solve the "corrupt bureaucrat cuts corners he doesn't understand" problem, and also demonstrate that the failure of a single reacto…

> Death rate 100%

Pretty sure the death rate is 100% for exposure to literally anything given enough time...

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

#387

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…

> The cost of climate change clearly far outweighs the cost of nuclear plants and waste. Um, yes until you factor in failure rates due to incompetence + natural failure. Chernobyl, look it up, massive cost, massive loss of land, death/cancer rate of all exposed nearly 100%. Until you can solve the "corrupt bureaucrat cuts corners he doesn't understand" problem, and also demonstrate that the failure of a single reacto…

> Climate change will slowly roast us all to death, a nuclear failure will, instantly fry us all to molten pulp, I know which one I prefer.

If you believe that even the worst nuclear accident at power plant will "instantly fry us all to molten pulp" in any appreciable range (while climate change is worldwide), the you are mistaken

> death/cancer rate of all exposed nearly 100%.

It is completely untrue. Even among https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators it is not true.

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

#388

The 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…

> Any entity that develops an unlimited, clean and cheap source of energy essentially has access to a money printer.

Well, one thing that should be clear to anyone watching the space is that fusion will be neither unlimited, clean nor cheap. At the very least, not with any approach being looked at today.

First of all, being based on state-of-the-art science and tech, it's clear that it cannot be cheap for another 20-30 years even if it was working today.

Secondly, fusion reactors will produce large quantities of radioactive waste, probably larger than fission reactors, because everything that comes in close proximity to the reactor will be bombarded by 30+ times as many neutrons than in a fission reactor (or 5x-20x as many for DD fusion), and much higher energy neutrons at that, making it brittle and radioactive. Most of the reactor components are expected to need changing every 2-4 years, by which time they will be radioactive waste. Not to mention, fusion plants will work with large amounts of tritium, which is notoriously hard to contain, making tritium leaks all but guaranteed. So, definitely not clean.

Thirdly, fusion reactors require large amounts of tritium, which is virtually non-existent on Earth and must be created in fission power plants. The neutrons from the fusion reaction can theoretically also be used to recycle tritium (when hitting the lithium blanket), but you would have to recapture 100% of the tritium produced this way to recreate fuel, which is not possible. So, to run a fusion reactor you will be limited by tritium availability, and that will mean you also need a small fission reactor, and that in turn requires uranium - so, not really that unlimited.

Not to mention, even Deuterium is not actually that easy to obtain, as you need to either get it from fossil fuels (the way it is mostly obtained today) or from water hydrolysis, which is another waste of your produced energy.

Overall, fusion seems extremely unlikely to be an economically viable source of energy in the coming decades. Every new reactor will require massive investments, it will waste a good portion of its output to keep itself running (powering the superconducting magnets, pumping coolant, void pumping the reactors, water hydrolisis, lithium processing to extract the tritium etc). It will require highly trained engineers to design, build and maintain. It will have a high risk of catastrophic damage to the reactor itself, easily vaporizing much of the investment in an instant if the magnetic containment of the plasma fails, for example, or melting down spectacularly if the cooling system fails. Virtually all components of the reactor, including the high tech magnets, will require constant replacement as they become brittle from the neutron bombardment - and all the old parts will require expensive radioactive storage for at least a few decades to centuries.

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

#389
post #69

Earlier 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…

I don't know what makes you so so confident about your prediction, and what you've written about fusion's relationship to waste is, I'm pretty sure, inaccurate.

When you observe historical data, you see that the graphs of the amount of energy we are able to master are roughly proportional to the graphs of our emissions of garbage (construction, pollution, CO2, consumer goods etc.).

I'm not saying I don't want fusion, I'm saying that without getting much better at deciding collectively what to do with it then those graphs will stay coupled, taking us to a sure doom.

Anyway it's likely we'll get there before fusion so it should not distract us from all other necessary transformations the system needs.

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

#390

Earlier 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…

Commercial fusion power probably makes it more economical to spend more energy recycling materials.

Yes, that would be a good use for it. But:

- Designing things to be durable and recyclable in the first place is probably more economical and sustainable (both can be combined though, no problem)

- Recycling is not a silver bullet. Extracting and re-combining all the microscopic parts of different metals in an iPhone to get back the original metal is incredibly expensive or unfeasible, compared to just extracting that metal from nature

- Unlimited energy makes it easier to go deeper and deeper extract resources from earth's crust, generating more and more garbage. What do you think we'll do, when you observe what we've done so far?

Post reply on HN