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

A Star in a Bottle

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 162 posts

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#151

Post by dredmorbius »

jackgavigan wrote: post #9

As a child, I read Friday by Robert A Heinlein, which portrayed a future in which energy needs are addressed by energy storage devices called "Shipstones", which are described as a way to pack more kilowatt-hours into a smaller space and a smaller mass than any other engineer had ever dreamed of. To call it an "improved storage battery" (as some early accounts did) is like calling an H-bomb an "improved firecracker."…

It's not energy storage, per se, but entropy gradients (and the means to tap or trigger them) which humans (and, well, pretty much all other entropic processes) rely on.

The challenge for fusion is that it's so phenomenally difficult to tap that gradient (without annoying the neighbors) that it may well prove impossible forever.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#152

Post by TuringTest »

jackgavigan wrote: post #9

As a child, I read Friday by Robert A Heinlein, which portrayed a future in which energy needs are addressed by energy storage devices called "Shipstones", which are described as a way to pack more kilowatt-hours into a smaller space and a smaller mass than any other engineer had ever dreamed of. To call it an "improved storage battery" (as some early accounts did) is like calling an H-bomb an "improved firecracker."…

"Also, what happens if the mechanisms that contain the "Star in a Bottle" fail? Will the French Alps suddenly and catastrophically acquire a new valley"

As seen in the article, the most worrying concern could be having the four-story tall metallic magnetic core launched through the roof with twice the thrust of a space shuttle.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#153

Post by Grue3 »

pilom wrote: post #49
ck2 wrote: post #19

a cryogenics plant, which will produce liquid helium Wait, they are manufacturing helium? Thought that wasn't possible? Or just converting gas to liquid?

Helium exists in 2 parts of this plant. In the plasma toroid (the hot part) hydrogen will be converted into helium but in incredibly small quantities (X grams/hour). In the electromagnets, there will be liquid helium. This is to keep the wires in the electromagnets cold enough to be superconducting. This liquid helium is mined from the earth and then cooled to a liquid in the cryogenics plant. So overall, they are "m…

Then isn't the process limited by the amount of helium on Earth (which is pretty low)? Once all liquid helium evaporates the reactor wouldn't be able to produce enough helium to replace it.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#154

Post by drjesusphd »

prewett wrote: post #142
drjesusphd wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there's only a few hundred years' worth of uranium and coal remaining (and we better not be burning the latter for that long for greenhouse reasons). There is millions' of years worth of fusion fuel on Earth. The fact that it's "only" half a coal plant is hardly a criticism.

Well, $20 billion and counting for half a coal plant is a bit of a problem... And actually, it's not half a coal plant, because the half coal plant is net + 500 MW, and since ITER isn't supposed to reach the ignition point, the output is 500 MW, but the input is > 500 MW. If fusion requires wonder-of-the-world kind of technology to not even break even, it makes me somewhat pessimistic. (However, I still say, more pow…

> since ITER isn't supposed to reach the ignition point, the output is 500 MW, but the input is > 500 MW.

Actually, it's supposed to reach about 10x breakeven, but there can be reasonable debate on how possible that is. Ignition is something different, when the fusion power itself keeps the plasma hot enough to sustain it. This is unlikely for ITER.

But your point is valid. It won't actually function as a power plant.

> If fusion requires wonder-of-the-world kind of technology to not even break even, it makes me somewhat pessimistic. (However, I still say, more power to them, fund them, let's see where this goes)

I agree, and I too think it's well worth it. I'm certainly not suggested we rely entirely on fusion research for getting us through the upcoming energy crisis, but it will be essential if we ever want long-term (centuries) sustainable industrial growth.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#155

Post by mathattack »

mturmon wrote: post #70
mathattack wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me naive, but I think it was Junior surrounding himself with folks who wanted him to finish the job that Pops started. I think they (like most who start wars) dramatically underestimating the costs and complexity. I'm less inclined to believe that it has to do with gassing their own people (why start caring now?) or going to the Euro. But I do agree with the above points that we spend an awful lot of time fighti…

According to those who interviewed the principal decision makers, your "naive" belief is roughly correct. For example, from Mark Danner's recent article ( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/darknes... ) -- "According to those attending National Security Council meetings in the days after September 11, The primary impetus for invading Iraq…was to make an example of [Saddam] Hussein, to create a demon…

It was strategic thinking. One could argue whether it worked or not, but it was an application of game theory to international relations.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#156

Post by tripzilch »

byerley wrote: post #108
scarmig wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even that goes too far. We're terrified of the fact that we live in an arational, incomprehensible world. It's a comforting fiction that some large conspiracy controls everything for the benefit of itself at the expense of everyone else, because at least that admits the possibility of control. And if societies can be controlled, at least in principle they can be fixed. Much scarier is the idea that power stumbles bli…

Perhaps scarier and more accurate is the idea that it's done for a very good reason, but that we lack the context/intelligence to understand it as individuals. No one wants to be the organism in a superorganism.

Seriously. The regular and systematic murder and disposal of countless innocent intestinal flora, sometimes bordering on genocide, is considered healthy and even joke-worthy by some of us superorganisms.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#157

Post by qntmfred »

drjesusphd wrote: post #134
qntmfred wrote: post #61

the technology could solve the world’s energy problems for the next thirty million years oh, ok

What's wrong with the claim? It's only dependent on getting the D-D fusion reaction burning (which we're still a long way off). Second only to matter/antimatter annihilation, nuclear fusion is the most energy-dense process in the universe. And the fuel consists of about 0.03% of the world's oceans.

i wasn't aware that we had any accurate projections of the world's energy needs 30 million years from now

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#158

Post by drjesusphd »

qntmfred wrote: post #157
drjesusphd wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with the claim? It's only dependent on getting the D-D fusion reaction burning (which we're still a long way off). Second only to matter/antimatter annihilation, nuclear fusion is the most energy-dense process in the universe. And the fuel consists of about 0.03% of the world's oceans.

i wasn't aware that we had any accurate projections of the world's energy needs 30 million years from now

Of course we don't. A more accurate statement is that it would supply the world's present energy needs for 30 millions years.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#159

Post by Ygg2 »

bicknergseng wrote: post #96
sbierwagen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, what happens if the mechanisms that contain the "Star in a Bottle" fail? Will the French Alps suddenly and catastrophically acquire a new valley? This is a reasonable concern, but your intuitions on the physical processes involved are off by a couple orders of magnitude. From a previous comment on another fusion story, two years ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2839722 Fusion reactors are fundamentally…

"a Yugo rear-ending a garbage truck in Brooklyn doesn't instantly consume all of New York City in a gasoline fireball." My new favorite metaphor.

It's possible. Albeit the Yugo needs to move at the speed of light.

Which might sound plausible for anyone that never heard of Yugo, or the speed of light.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#160

Post by Ygg2 »

jackgavigan wrote: post #9

As a child, I read Friday by Robert A Heinlein, which portrayed a future in which energy needs are addressed by energy storage devices called "Shipstones", which are described as a way to pack more kilowatt-hours into a smaller space and a smaller mass than any other engineer had ever dreamed of. To call it an "improved storage battery" (as some early accounts did) is like calling an H-bomb an "improved firecracker."…

> Will the French Alps suddenly and catastrophically acquire a new valley?

They'll get a shiny useless building at best. A perforated building at worst. With a lot more vapor.

Post reply on HN