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

161–170 of 833 posts

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#161

Post by VaxWithSex »

neonsunset wrote: post #143
VaxWithSex wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

What were the estimated damage and deaths caused by Fukushima incident? When was the reactor site built, when was the reactor designed? A few extra questions you may also be interested in: lithium, cobalt mining, costs of nanolitography for high efficiency photovoltaic cells. All that with tax breaks and heavy govt incentives vs insane regulatory burden on nuclear industry. Also nuclear scare in education that makes…

extra questions you might be interested in:

where is most of the uranium mined that is used in european reactors? what environmental damages are done by reprocessing uran? costs of the buildback of reactors? who will pay for it when the costs for this are 10x what the operators put aside for it? how much subsidies go into nuclear? how do you prevent proliferation in rougue nations that use nuclear for example iran?

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#162

Post by soperj »

dylan604 wrote: post #130
soperj wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what people get out of repeating this on every single fusion article. It's not inventive or insightful, and it doesn't further the discussion in the slightest.

Because it's A) true, B) relevant to keep all of the hype in check. The year of Linux on the desktop is always right around the corner too. Yes, they are tropes, but they were not born out of nothing. Someone has to keep the bloviated PR campaigns checked with reality. Otherwise, some crazy fools might actually start believing that fusion is real and gets duped out of their money. If you can't stand a bit of real cri…

It's not true. The original quote was 30 years given current funding. They reduced the funding and surprise surprise it didn't get done. It's like when you estimate how long a project will take given a thousand people, and they reduce the number of people on the project to one person and then hold you to the original estimate.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#164

Post by vlovich123 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #120
dahfizz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

But at least we’ve built them and we know we can provide the necessary capacity.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#165

Post by _ea1k »

elurg wrote: post #102
coldpie wrote: post #74

Earlier 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).

Why do we need to cover the worst case with 100% renewables? The goal is to reduce emissions so it would be great even if we can just stop burning coal in the summer.

We don't need to do that. But the media focuses on things like that and turns everything into some sort of weird argument that renewables are literally going to freeze gramma to death. Its overwhelmingly about emotion.

Its the same as what we see with EVs, tbh. Oh noes, what if you get caught in a snowstorm!? Imagine if 80% of the cars were EVs and they got stuck and there were... no chargers! Picture yourself freezing to death because of "those people".

Real world performance and goals are not correlated well with media hyperbole.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#166

Post by VaxWithSex »

Robotbeat wrote: post #154
VaxWithSex wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presenting the progress of fusion in such a way to give the impression that commercialisation is right around the corner has been done before.

Nothing like commercialization happens without an insane amount of work. It’s easy to criticize, hard to actually help.

Yes because it's hard to make fusion viable since 50 years my guy...

Am I talking to a ChatGPT instance or what is happening here. Let's find out :D

\\\vig-128 ?{/subject unlink;;;

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#167

Post by toomuchtodo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #145
megaman821 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> if you limit yourself to using solar generated with Minnesota's state borders I live in a cold state. The idea of relying on out-of-state power, regulated and controlled by people with zero accountability to you, for life-and-death energy is a tough sell.

The state you live in has one of the highest potentials for wind power in the country, easily backed by transmission, batteries, and as a last resort, natural gas.

High level, the energy transition isn't simply a fossil->renewables story, but also a centralization->highly decentralized story.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#168

Post by megaman821 »

Ruq wrote: post #139

The pessimist in me says that some building(s) are going to burn down, one or more persons will be found with two bullet wounds as "obvious suicide", and that any and all supporting documents will be "lost". Because we simply cannot live in a world where we are independent from the current power structure. They won't allow it. Hopefully I'm wrong, I'd love to see progress in energy production that is actually sustain…

This is like the "great-man" theory applied to scientific research. Even if this were to happen, I don't think it would matter much in the long term. The scientific community seems to independently come up with the same or similar solutions to the problems being concentrated on.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#169

Post by Mistletoe »

hadlock wrote: post #100
coldpie wrote: post #74

Earlier 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…

Cold can be mitigated a lot by enhanced R-value insulation in a single application. Northern states have higher levels of insulation.

https://www.energystar.gov/campaign/seal_insulate/identify_p...

I don't really see a hot/cold stratification in this chart-

https://www.statista.com/chart/12098/the-us-states-with-the-...

And even then, the difference in costs seems quite small. Alaska is $332 and Georgia is $310.

Post reply on HN