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

Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#21

Post by ianburrell »

LegionMammal978 wrote: post #17
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US military is very much interested in fusion, as an energy source. The Desert Storm conflict cost something like $1T (yes a Trillion dollars) just for gasoline. There was on this site a description of a military effort to create a low-yield fusion generator that would fit on a military truck. It only had to fuel a mobile camp, not a city. If I recall, it was something like the Lockheed plan, to create a vortex (…

That seems wildly high? The figure widely quoted for the total cost of the Gulf War is $60B in 1991 dollars, or $137B today, so clearly the gasoline costs alone can't exceed that number. It's only the extremely prolonged conflicts like the War in Afghanistan that get into the trillions of dollars total.

$1T would be too high for Iraq War where the costs run $1T to $3T. The higher numbers are total long-term costs, not just the war fighting. There are lots of costs to war instead of just fuel; the people cost more.

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#22

Post by vlovich123 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #15
tonetegeatinst wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of people who are really into fusion research know that the military isn't going to be doing the same kind of fusion research as the groups looking into fusion as an energy source. Is what they did interesting sure, but alot of people who actually follow fusion development know that this was a PR meme that some news stretched. Fusion has always been 20 years away its a literal meme....and yet we are mak…

The US military is very much interested in fusion, as an energy source. The Desert Storm conflict cost something like $1T (yes a Trillion dollars) just for gasoline. There was on this site a description of a military effort to create a low-yield fusion generator that would fit on a military truck. It only had to fuel a mobile camp, not a city. If I recall, it was something like the Lockheed plan, to create a vortex (…

Setting aside the wildly suspect 1T claim, I’m not convinced by the argument. Fusion power plants are fixed large-scale facilities. In a war zone you need mobile power sources. I could see a fusion reactor powering a ship and maybe powering temporarily shore-based facilities. AFAIK the military is looking at solar for mobile power in forward deployments though which makes sense. Unless the argument is that fusion is used to generate transportable fuel (hydrogen, efuels etc). But then that argument is weird because the military would be doing that with fission today which actually exists and it has to expensive field experience with and supply chains supporting.

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#23

Post by indymike »

vlovich123 wrote: post #22
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US military is very much interested in fusion, as an energy source. The Desert Storm conflict cost something like $1T (yes a Trillion dollars) just for gasoline. There was on this site a description of a military effort to create a low-yield fusion generator that would fit on a military truck. It only had to fuel a mobile camp, not a city. If I recall, it was something like the Lockheed plan, to create a vortex (…

Setting aside the wildly suspect 1T claim, I’m not convinced by the argument. Fusion power plants are fixed large-scale facilities. In a war zone you need mobile power sources. I could see a fusion reactor powering a ship and maybe powering temporarily shore-based facilities. AFAIK the military is looking at solar for mobile power in forward deployments though which makes sense. Unless the argument is that fusion is…

> Fusion power plants are fixed large-scale facilities.

Large scale facilities really are not all that interesting. They concentrate cost, danger and impose lots of logistical limitations.

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#24

Post by wolverine876 »

tonetegeatinst wrote: post #14
rob74 wrote: post #3

> Plenty of other obstacles remain than those noted above, too. Current calculations compare energy generated against the NIF laser’s output, but that brushes over the fact that the lasers draw more than 100 times the power from the grid than any fusion reaction yields. That means either energy gains or laser efficiency would need to improve by two orders of magnitude to break even in any practical sense. The NIF’s f…

I think a lot of people who are really into fusion research know that the military isn't going to be doing the same kind of fusion research as the groups looking into fusion as an energy source. Is what they did interesting sure, but alot of people who actually follow fusion development know that this was a PR meme that some news stretched. Fusion has always been 20 years away its a literal meme....and yet we are mak…

> a lot of people who are really into fusion research

Do you mean researchers and other experts, or people who follow it? And does that include you? Are you a researcher?

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#25

Post by wolverine876 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #15
tonetegeatinst wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of people who are really into fusion research know that the military isn't going to be doing the same kind of fusion research as the groups looking into fusion as an energy source. Is what they did interesting sure, but alot of people who actually follow fusion development know that this was a PR meme that some news stretched. Fusion has always been 20 years away its a literal meme....and yet we are mak…

The US military is very much interested in fusion, as an energy source. The Desert Storm conflict cost something like $1T (yes a Trillion dollars) just for gasoline. There was on this site a description of a military effort to create a low-yield fusion generator that would fit on a military truck. It only had to fuel a mobile camp, not a city. If I recall, it was something like the Lockheed plan, to create a vortex (…

I've read that the US military has looked into small fission generators. They expect logistics to be very difficult near the front if there is a war with a 'near-peer' (China or maybe Russia) and hope to reduce fuel logistics.

I've never heard of them looking into similar fusion reactors. Why would they? Nobody expects to build any kind of production fusion reactor for decades, much less one that could be operated by infantry soldiers and in very difficult conditions - e.g., explosions and people shooting at the reactor.

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#26

Post by wolverine876 »

twp wrote: post #2

There's a really good series on what's needed to build a working fusion reactor on the YouTube channel "Improbable Matter". How nuclear fusion works (1) - fusors, thermonuclear reactions, lattice fusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DzKXN1pcwY How nuclear fusion works (2) - confinement, stars, nukes, inertial fusion energy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxmxZI2Ltvs How nuclear fusion works (3) - magnetic confin…

Who makes "Improbably Matter"?

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#27

Post by wolverine876 »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #12

OT but are there any links to resources about using fission/fusion bombs directly for energy production?

Why go through the expense of engineering and manufacturing a bomb, and then use it for a different purpose? If you want an electricity generator, engineer and manufacture for that. Or are you thinking of using excess bombs?

I want to say that fusion bombs require more energy input than they output, because until recently nobody has been able to create fusion reactions otherwise (and now only in a very limited way). But is that true? Fusion bombs release an incredible amount of energy. Maybe it's that they release it all at once, but still, how does that equation work out?

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#28

Post by ThrowawayTestr »

rob74 wrote: post #3

> Plenty of other obstacles remain than those noted above, too. Current calculations compare energy generated against the NIF laser’s output, but that brushes over the fact that the lasers draw more than 100 times the power from the grid than any fusion reaction yields. That means either energy gains or laser efficiency would need to improve by two orders of magnitude to break even in any practical sense. The NIF’s f…

Check out General Fusion who are actually building a scalable fusion reactor.

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#29

Post by _a_a_a_ »

philipkglass wrote: post #16
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #12

OT but are there any links to resources about using fission/fusion bombs directly for energy production?

The concept was explored in the United States as Project PACER: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER

excellent, thanks

Re: Momentary fusion breakthroughs face hard reality

#30

Post by _a_a_a_ »

wolverine876 wrote: post #27
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #12

OT but are there any links to resources about using fission/fusion bombs directly for energy production?

Why go through the expense of engineering and manufacturing a bomb, and then use it for a different purpose? If you want an electricity generator, engineer and manufacture for that. Or are you thinking of using excess bombs? I want to say that fusion bombs require more energy input than they output, because until recently nobody has been able to create fusion reactions otherwise (and now only in a very limited way).…

> Why go through the expense of...

Good question. I should have asked strictly about fusion bombs. These being a known-working example of energy production by fusion, why not use them when we can't get 'controlled' fusion working?

Post reply on HN