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

211–220 of 833 posts

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#211

Post by dylan604 »

signatoremo wrote: post #206
dylan604 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you want to keep the hype in check, do it with facts like /acidburnNSA did above. Let people debate. You don’t even know what will be announced. Repeating the same joke in every single fusion article is tiresome and has long past its funny expiration date.

Why does it have to be funny? It's just a sad statement about the situation. Maybe you're tired of people not being as excited as you, or even willing to for a second hold their breath any longer on this topic. But here we are at another announcement essentially saying "this shit is hard. with more funding, we could possibly maybe do something in the nearish future". Anything announced in the PRs is just mumbojumbo hand waving to explain why what they are saying isn't really saying anything substantive other than to keep fusion in the news so it is easier to raise money. This is the main perception of fussion by the masses.

Personally, I just don't see fusion being a viable solution for anything in any of our lifetimes. I will gladly admit how wrong I was if/when someone solves it. I just have a much stronger doubt in sci-fi vs reality, and don't get swooned by the hype machines surrounding fusion.

What is tiring to me is calling the skeptics tiring. But to each their own

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#212

Post by pfdietz »

gabesullice wrote: post #209
pfdietz wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Most skepticism is ratified by subsequent events. DT fusion doesn't appear to have much to recommend it, since it still requires a thermal cycle like fission or coal, and that keeps its cost high. From an engineering point of view it involves large monolithic plants with very complex and stressed equipment. This seems the opposite of good engineering.

My impression is that the research efforts have been focused on "can we do it?" Then, if the answer is yes, they'll focus on "how do we do it efficiently?" Where efficiency can mean anything from capital efficient, to resource efficient, to energy conversion efficiency. Limiting one's focus on the next blocker in the critical path and not increasing scope beyond it sounds like perfectly good engineering to me.

It seems like terrible myopic project management to me. You want to avoid first steps that you know are very likely going to lead to dead ends down the line.

We're constantly being told to take the long term view. Are we only to do that when it's favorable to the technological optimist's case or budget?

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#213

Post by tacocataco »

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…

The birds fly south for the winter. Then again, the birds dont have to worry about who owns the land wherever they eventually land.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#216

Post by thehappypm »

jeffbee wrote: post #171
thehappypm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like a version 1.0 steam engine. Miniaturization and optimization can come next.

The analogy doesn't really work. The utility of a steam engine was obvious to antiquity, but they did not have the materials technology to build it. They did not need basic science to do steam power. The first practical steam engine predates the understanding by chemists of combustion. It was invented when phlogiston was still the going theory. NIF on the other hand is already a miracle of materials science. An absol…

People in antiquity did build a functioning steam-powered engine, but dismissed it as a curiosity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#217

Post by atemerev »

VaxWithSex wrote: post #127
atemerev wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal nuclear reactors are a good thing too, and they alone are enough to solve all of humanity’s energy problems (though we should pursue fusion power too, of course). See Integral Fast Reactor.

Only if you use the notoriously dangerous breeder reactors – otherwise there isn't enough fuel.

Breeder reactors are not "notoriously dangerous", they are just a little too expensive to justify their construction when the uranium is cheap (like it is now). Also, there are proliferation risks. However, these are not engineering problems nor scientific problems, breeder reactors are production-ready and safe.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#218

Post by 93po »

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 don't yet understand why this is better than Fission

Realistically, today, it's only better because of decades of lobbying and propaganda for fear mongering around fission. There is no reason why nuclear energy couldn't be the vast majority producer of all electricity in the world while massively lowering environmental damage and loss of human life.

Long term, fusion might be better because it can produce a lot more energy and be safer. I feel like the safety improvement is negligible however compared to modern fission reactors that are properly maintained and governed.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#219

Post by 93po »

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…

We'll see the same thing we see around fission. Lobbying and fear mongering. Politicians lining their pockets in exchange for delaying and blocking and refusing to fund fusion.

Re: Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab

#220

Post by Robotbeat »

VaxWithSex wrote: post #190
Robotbeat wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of solar. That took a century to get to where we are today where the net energy output is much greater than the energy needed to manufacture them. It being hard and it requiring continual progress does not mean that progress does not occur.

Correct. Nuclear fusion research should be funded and realistic goals be set.

…which is exactly what this is?
Post reply on HN