I just hope it isn't another ( there's been more than one ) NASA level "announcement" on astrobiology that's going to rewrite the "book". These sorts of headline grabs do nothing to help in the end. This is feeling like another one of these, and I'm hoping to be proven wrong - as who wouldn't love a mr. fusion in their future.
Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
111–120 of 833 posts
Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
#112The net energy gain is very slim and has to be converted to electricity to power the lasers – in doing so, there's so much loss, it is again NEGATIVE.
It's always the same…
Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you seem to be an expert in that field, what is your perspective on fission for the short term? Are smrs really viable ?
I'm not super excited about current SMR projects either, sadly. The economies of scale that they explicitly turn away from are very real. The economies of mass production that they rely on can't be achieved unless a lot of people are willing to buy the first N for high cost. But who will buy after the first few boondoggle a bit? I am excited about standardized large light-water reactors at the moment, like the US/Jap…
I'm curious, when you're talking about the SMR projects, does that include the Natrium reactors from TerraPower? I think they're backed by the Gates Foundation? Those seemed pretty interesting to me as a nuclear layman. Also, I don't know a lot about Bill Gates, but he does seem like the kind of guy that if they showed some real success, boondoggle or not, he'd be willing to brute force his way past those issues by throwing money at the problem.
Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
#114After 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…
It's still decades off but as I understand it, this was the hardest nut to crack. They got what, 2.5 megajoules out of 2.1 in? I might be in the opposite camp as you but this is very much a "where were you when—" moment for me. I'm sure someone will pop in to disappoint me but I think the point is it's no longer a hypothetical exercise.
The net energy gain is very slim and has to be converted to electricity to power the lasers – in doing so, there's so much loss, it is again NEGATIVE.
It's always the same…
Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
#115Good write-up to temper expectations at https://twitter.com/wilson_ricks/status/1602088153577246721 My TLDR (from a layman): * The output is greater than the energy *in the lasers*, but the lasers deliver 1% of the energy required to power them. Need 100x improvement to break even. * Converting the generated energy into electricity would cut the output in half. We need a further 2x improvement here, so it's ~200x to…
temper
Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still decades off but as I understand it, this was the hardest nut to crack. They got what, 2.5 megajoules out of 2.1 in? I might be in the opposite camp as you but this is very much a "where were you when—" moment for me. I'm sure someone will pop in to disappoint me but I think the point is it's no longer a hypothetical exercise.
Not an engineer in this field, so I may have misread/misunderstood, but I read that 2.5MJ out for 2.1MJ of laser energy in, NOT the total energy needed to make the whole thing work.. So, in a layman’s world, it is not a net gain of power, only a small subset of the system yielding more power than it took in. Happy to be proven wrong and told that it is more of a breakthrough than I think it is..
No, you are correct.
Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fa…
[deleted]
Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fa…
Minnesota can use wind, which is also cheaper.
Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you seem to be an expert in that field, what is your perspective on fission for the short term? Are smrs really viable ?
I'm not super excited about current SMR projects either, sadly. The economies of scale that they explicitly turn away from are very real. The economies of mass production that they rely on can't be achieved unless a lot of people are willing to buy the first N for high cost. But who will buy after the first few boondoggle a bit? I am excited about standardized large light-water reactors at the moment, like the US/Jap…
Wouldn't the possible location for floating reactors be much more limited than SMR projects? I would think special financing might get the ball rolling for SMRs, strong decades spanning incentives for first movers.
Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
#120Earlier 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/…
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 exact…
See you in ten years at the earliest when any nuclear generator you break ground on today generates its first kWh of power (assuming it isn’t wildly late or over budget, as every one built since the 70s has been).