161–170 of 309 posts
Article is click-bait. Most of it is dedicated to general information and history, not the question. It would be a good article if its title were “All that you just suddenly wanted to know about nuclear fusion if you never got the itch before, in one big gulp.” Of course, somebody who knows nothing of nuclear fusion and want to would be better served by a tittle that says so “Have you heard the good news? Nuclear fus…
If a fusion reactor can be made practicable, then we have a clean, low-radiation power generation system that will still work in the face of nuclear / asteroid-impact / supervolcanic winter.
...granted, any of those events could take out most or all of the hypothetical reactors, but it still seems worth noting to me.
Article is click-bait. Most of it is dedicated to general information and history, not the question. It would be a good article if its title were “All that you just suddenly wanted to know about nuclear fusion if you never got the itch before, in one big gulp.” Of course, somebody who knows nothing of nuclear fusion and want to would be better served by a tittle that says so “Have you heard the good news? Nuclear fus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just by buying an electric vehicle I already have more than enough batteries to solve these problems for my household. Not if you live in Northern Europe. Solar is basically worthless there during winter. I’m not even talking about polar nights, just places like Denmark where the difference in production between January and June is 20x. No batteries (that we know of) would solve that.
Indeed. I live in Northern Europe and have a 17.2 kWp solar plant. During the summer, I see ~100 kWh uselessly (for me) go to the grid every day for a pittance, and I can't really use it. 4 months of the year (almost 5 if it's a really bad year like last year), there's virtually no production. I work in the smart energy field, including with home batteries. The de facto standard size is still 10 kWh because the promi…
2. Domestic solar is just a way to save money. If you bought more than you need then you wasted money. A typical consumer would be fine with 10 kwp system + 10kwh battery which in Europe costs now less than 20,000 EUR.
Cumulative funding required for demonstration commercial fusion reactor Was compelling. Belief we're prepared to invest seems lacking. I think achieving multi second "stable" plasma conditions has been amazing. But, I think that's a cigarette lighter held next to petrified wood (to use an atomic bomb era analogy) away from ignition as a useful energy over time equation. We're also somewhat behind "what's embrittlemen…
> cigarette lighter held next to petrified wood (to use an atomic bomb era analogy) Can you, or anyone, explain the lore here? I get it's impossible to light it on fire, but what's the context? I tried searching for the expression and couldn't find anything.
From "Dark Sun" by Richard Rhodes.
It took 12 years to build first unit of Belarusian NPP - of a type that's been built by the dozen for decades, and in a country where all-powerful government controls and owns everything, there is no NIMBY or the "society" thing in the Western understanding at all, and where if you try to protest you just disappear. Can't be done faster. By 2036, fossil fuel electricity will be a thing of the past in some places, and quickly disappearing in all others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2 weeks of clouds or 2 weeks of no wind AND not OR. To actually need 2 weeks of storage you would need both 0 output in solar for 2 weeks and 0 wind for two weeks and 0 output from hydro. That doesn’t happen. You still get solar power on cloudy days, it just takes more panels to generate some specific level of power. The goal is to minimize X$ for generation + Y$ for storage while guaranteeing sufficient supply. An…
So I'm living up north here where from Nov 15 to Jan 26 we get less than 9 hours of daylight per day and the sun is at a low angle above the horizon. We won't be generating anywhere near nameplate capacity even if the sky is clear due to the ubiquity. Add clouds and the short day... and it's really rough for a few months. Sometimes it's windy when it's dark and cold, and sometimes it just stays cloudy and calm for a…
No. We never will. Simply ran out of time. Electricity will be provided fully by renewables only in EU and China in a timeframe shorter than it takes to build a new nuclear reactor of already well-debugged type, from scratch - let alone a thermonuclear one for which no designs exist. We are speaking 2035-2040 to fully get rid of fossil fuels in electricity grid, and 2030-2035 before they are reduced to low (10-20%) l…
The country's current fleet stands at 56 reactors. China expects to build 6 to 8 new nuclear power plants each year for the foreseeable future and is projected to pass the U.S. in nuclear-generated electricity by 2030. In total, China intends to build a total of 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035.
China is also expanding coal power stations (while closing older shitty coal stations) to provide base energy for its planned and ongoing expansion of both solar and nuclear.
Currently something of the order of 60% of the energy requirement of building solar (for local use and for global supply) in China comes directly from coal power.
I'm all for renewables, it's the sensible direction.
I'm also big on factual statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I'm living up north here where from Nov 15 to Jan 26 we get less than 9 hours of daylight per day and the sun is at a low angle above the horizon. We won't be generating anywhere near nameplate capacity even if the sky is clear due to the ubiquity. Add clouds and the short day... and it's really rough for a few months. Sometimes it's windy when it's dark and cold, and sometimes it just stays cloudy and calm for a…
Corollary: energy is going to much more expensive the further you get away from the equator (in the absence of very predictable winds/lots of hydro/cheap geothermal).
No. We never will. Simply ran out of time. Electricity will be provided fully by renewables only in EU and China in a timeframe shorter than it takes to build a new nuclear reactor of already well-debugged type, from scratch - let alone a thermonuclear one for which no designs exist. We are speaking 2035-2040 to fully get rid of fossil fuels in electricity grid, and 2030-2035 before they are reduced to low (10-20%) l…
In reality electricity in China will NOT "be provided fully by renewables". The country's current fleet stands at 56 reactors. China expects to build 6 to 8 new nuclear power plants each year for the foreseeable future and is projected to pass the U.S. in nuclear-generated electricity by 2030. In total, China intends to build a total of 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035. China has an impressive expansion…