Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 833 posts

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#91

Post by dahfizz »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #57
coldpie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, energy storage is still an unsolved problem. Research on batteries may get us there soon, but today they aren't feasible. It's very much worth putting effort into both approaches. IMO the best outcome is a wide variety of clean energy sources and storage solutions, so the best solution can be chosen for a given geographical/political/etc situation.

Solar and batteries are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. Nuclear isn’t competing with renewables, it’s competing against batteries and almost free renewables that charge them. Nuclear is still possibly a great fit for niche locales where renewables aren’t feasible at all. Not a nuclear hater by any means (we need every innovation we can get), just show your math. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/…

Construction still hasn't begun on that project, 3 years later. When is the last time LA had a large construction project come in under budget?

I'll believe it when the batteries are actually installed and the bill is paid.

Also, the solar farm is planned for 800-MWh of storage. In 2021, LA used over 65 TWh of electricity[1]. That's over 7 GWh, per hour. So this storage would run the city for a few minutes. Not exactly a replacement for base load generation.

[1] https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#92

Post by giarc »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #48

I live near Princeton NJ. Approx 4+ years ago years ago I bumped into a friend one evening at a local restaurant / bar. As it turned out, her date was a top guy at the Princeton Plasma Labs. Long to short, Gates assured me (paraphrasing), "We're close. It's doable. All we need is more funding." I hope he's right. p.s. I know PPPL might not be directly involved in this announcement. I was sharing context on the topic.…

I'd take all of that with a grain of salt. First he was probably trying to impress the girl, and second, every scientist says their work is possible, they just "need more funding". If they didn't think it was possible, they wouldn't be working on it.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#93

Post by acidburnNSA »

greybox wrote: post #82

I don't yet understand why this is better than Fission. Surely Fission provides us with unlimited carbon free energy (given enough fissionable material). What will Fusion give us that Fission can't already? Is it safer perhaps?

I think it's just like thorium molten salt reactors. It's a new awesomer kind of nuclear energy that doesn't have any of the baggage of fission!

Certainly, fusion does have the big advantage that it makes far fewer Curies of radioactive material per kWh as it operates. That has been the main driver of nuclear fission safety and waste issues.

On the other hand, there are good arguments suggesting that conventional fission has been reasonably good at containing and controlling the radiation, such that it's among the safest and cleanest forms of energy known already. But the PR issue is a hard one, and people don't think like actuaries.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#94

Post by svantana »

SuperFine wrote: post #52
acidburnNSA wrote: post #49

After a few more major breakthroughs we'll be where fission was in 1942 after Fermi made the first man made neutron chain reaction. After that, we can see what a practical electricity producing plant looks like, and see how much people actually care about small amounts of tritium radiation. At the moment fuel costs in fission are like 5-10% of total costs for a fission fleet. In fusion it could be lower, but that wil…

>After that, we can see what a practical electricity producing plant looks like I guess we still don't have anything better than boiling water, right?

Well, there is hydro, wind and photovoltaic. And in the fusion field there are startups working on aneutronic fusion, which can generate power directly from charged particles. LPPFusion is one that seemed promising a few years ago, but unfortunately less so now.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#95

Post by justsocrateasin »

greybox wrote: post #82

I don't yet understand why this is better than Fission. Surely Fission provides us with unlimited carbon free energy (given enough fissionable material). What will Fusion give us that Fission can't already? Is it safer perhaps?

I think the main difference is safety. Simplifying / IAMAPhysicist, but you can't get a runaway chain reaction with Fusion, and the reaction tends to just burn itself out if you shut it off.

That being said, fission is already pretty darn safe. But the public perception of it is not good.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#96

Post by sveme »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #50

Well... if Nuclear Fusion becomes actually possible in a cost-effective manner, so much for the need to roll out solar and wind-based electricity, which looks very much like a 1st-generation modern green energy technology in retrospect. I'm not complaining. If we do crack the code on Nuclear Fusion, if I was the government, my next step would be to figure out how to build so many reactors that electricity costs go to…

Even with such a breakthrough, cost-effective fusion would still probably be 50 years away. Why would you assume it to be super cheap right out the house?

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#97

Post by megaman821 »

coldpie wrote: post #74
toomuchtodo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar and batteries are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. Nuclear isn’t competing with renewables, it’s competing against batteries and almost free renewables that charge them. Nuclear is still possibly a great fit for niche locales where renewables aren’t feasible at all. Not a nuclear hater by any means (we need every innovation we can get), just show your math. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/…

Are solar + batteries feasible to heat every house in Minnesota with electricity when it's below -20F (-30C) for a week, we have > just show your math. I admit I can't. It's mostly gut-feeling from various science news sources I keep up with (e.g. Ars Technica; Skeptic's Guide to the Universe).

Only if you limit yourself to using solar generated with Minnesota's state borders.

Solar, Wind, HVDC transmission lines, short-term battery storage get us most of the way there, and is all on the process of being built out now. Medium term storage is still up in the air (flow batteries? compressed air?). Long term storage looks like hydrogen or natural gas with carbon capture. All these things seem more achievable than fusion in the next few decades.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#99

Post by p0pcult »

drak0n1c wrote: post #70
petermcneeley wrote: post #40

What is "zero-carbon" in this context? No graphite control rods?

It’s unnecessary greenwashing hyperbole. Of course there will still be carbon emissions from the production of the reactor parts and the sourcing of fuel ingredients. The potential benefits of working fusion are far greater than carbon worries, and the media sells it short with narrow-minded labeling.

Just because you understand the impact of fusion on carbon emissions, does not mean

>It’s unnecessary greenwashing hyperbole

OP's question provides evidence that not all people understand the carbon benefits of this technology.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#100

Post by hadlock »

coldpie wrote: post #74
toomuchtodo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar and batteries are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. Nuclear isn’t competing with renewables, it’s competing against batteries and almost free renewables that charge them. Nuclear is still possibly a great fit for niche locales where renewables aren’t feasible at all. Not a nuclear hater by any means (we need every innovation we can get), just show your math. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/…

Are solar + batteries feasible to heat every house in Minnesota with electricity when it's below -20F (-30C) for a week, we have > just show your math. I admit I can't. It's mostly gut-feeling from various science news sources I keep up with (e.g. Ars Technica; Skeptic's Guide to the Universe).

I honestly wonder if large scale population of the northern areas is feasible without carbon fuels. Historically chopped wood was used to heat northern homes and camps, later coal and oil and I guess now to some extent electricity, but as you say, renewable energy doesn't apply there. If places like Minnesota are a net negative for green/renewable energy, their costs may be much higher to offset generation in more favorable climates.
Post reply on HN