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

Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly

#11

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

regularfry wrote: post #10
throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone I think on a slashdot post calculated that we'd have to process about half the planet's atmosphere to get back theCO2, that is liquefy that much atmosphere to collect the CO2. Then we'd have to put I guess hundreds of cubic kilometres of liquid co2 somewhere. I long ago lost any hope we will deal with it.

You're missing the trick. If you've got "free" energy, you can reverse the process: combine the CO2 with water and turn it back into high density hydrocarbon solids that you can safely bury. Or, if you can pick the hydrocarbon, use them in construction. Doesn't help with the amount of gas you'd need to process, but the storage part is doable.

Very good point, thanks.

Re: Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly

#12

Post by EthanHeilman »

regularfry wrote: post #10
throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone I think on a slashdot post calculated that we'd have to process about half the planet's atmosphere to get back theCO2, that is liquefy that much atmosphere to collect the CO2. Then we'd have to put I guess hundreds of cubic kilometres of liquid co2 somewhere. I long ago lost any hope we will deal with it.

You're missing the trick. If you've got "free" energy, you can reverse the process: combine the CO2 with water and turn it back into high density hydrocarbon solids that you can safely bury. Or, if you can pick the hydrocarbon, use them in construction. Doesn't help with the amount of gas you'd need to process, but the storage part is doable.

200,000 years later: nuhumans "wooah, I just discovered that there are all these hydrocarbons buried in the ground. These would just be perfect for this industrial revolution we are having"

Re: Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly

#13

Post by gameswithgo »

dmitrybrant wrote: post #8

I'm not sure where people are getting this terminology of "unlimited" energy from fusion. Nothing in the universe is unlimited. The earth's supply of deuterium and/or tritium is not unlimited. It's also not infinitely "clean" energy. A fusion reactor is not a black box that is built once and never again maintained or rebuilt, or doesn't use any consumable components besides fuel. We already have the technology that g…

The same place that fossil fuel advocates get "unlimited" for fossil fuels.

They just mean "a lot"

Re: Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly

#14

Post by evgen »

bradbot wrote: post #9
throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone I think on a slashdot post calculated that we'd have to process about half the planet's atmosphere to get back theCO2, that is liquefy that much atmosphere to collect the CO2. Then we'd have to put I guess hundreds of cubic kilometres of liquid co2 somewhere. I long ago lost any hope we will deal with it.

Taking in mind absorption rate by plants, I wonder if you could do a controlled release in somewhere like a rainforest such that a minimal amount would make it back into the atmosphere and a majority would be taken in by trees and plants. Alternatively build large green houses and vertical farms and pump it directly into there.

Plants are not a sink for CO2, just a transition point. Any CO2 that is taken up by the plant gets released when it dies and decays.

Re: Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly

#15

Post by nsl73 »

dmitrybrant wrote: post #8

I'm not sure where people are getting this terminology of "unlimited" energy from fusion. Nothing in the universe is unlimited. The earth's supply of deuterium and/or tritium is not unlimited. It's also not infinitely "clean" energy. A fusion reactor is not a black box that is built once and never again maintained or rebuilt, or doesn't use any consumable components besides fuel. We already have the technology that g…

Please, don’t act like nuclear fusion is a simple iteration of nuclear fission. It’s a fundamentally different process.

Fusion would provide (much) more energy, use (much) less radioactive inputs, and produce (much) less radioactive outputs. Fusion is significantly safer. In a failure mode the fusion reaction will lose containment and die out like a fire without oxygen. Fission rods will continue to produce heat & radiation in a failure mode, and all failure modes of a fission power plant need to account for this.

I’m actually pro fission, because the risks of fission are lower than the risks of coal, oil, and natural gas. Yes, the article was hyperbolic. However, you’re under-hyping the advancement of fusion. When fusion comes it will be politically palpable globally, cleaner than fission, and it will reduce the cost of energy significantly.

Re: Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly

#16

Post by spodek »

hannob wrote: post #4
akmarinov wrote: post #3

Virtually unlimited clean energy like that would allow us to vacuum back the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reverse the damage we’ve done in the past 200 years, while allowing us to continue with our fossil fuel infrastructure. It’ll also enable unlimited desalination which would allow more crops and a lot more food, ending a whole mess of problems.

I'm honestly surprised where these fantasies come from. In order to get that energy you'll have to build a hugely complex industrial installation. That won't be for free. It won't be easy. If it will even be possible remains to be seen. You'll still need transmission lines and other infrastructure that costs money. Whether it'll work and if it works whether it will be cost competitive to renewable energy (still impro…

From misunderstanding exponential growth, which it will jump start. They think people will continue to live as they do now, just with lower electric bills.

Norman Borlaug on receiving the Nobel Prize for the green revolution, said it well:

"The green revolution has won a temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only.

Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the "Population Monster"...Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth..."

We haven't steered away from that course. Fusion would accelerate us on it. If we have to come into balance at some point, why not now instead of when we exhaust fusion's potential? Why does this community think we can solve every technical problem from the moon to Mars to fusion, but we can't live in balance with nature?

Re: Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly

#17

Post by fastball »

nsl73 wrote: post #15
dmitrybrant wrote: post #8

I'm not sure where people are getting this terminology of "unlimited" energy from fusion. Nothing in the universe is unlimited. The earth's supply of deuterium and/or tritium is not unlimited. It's also not infinitely "clean" energy. A fusion reactor is not a black box that is built once and never again maintained or rebuilt, or doesn't use any consumable components besides fuel. We already have the technology that g…

Please, don’t act like nuclear fusion is a simple iteration of nuclear fission. It’s a fundamentally different process. Fusion would provide (much) more energy, use (much) less radioactive inputs, and produce (much) less radioactive outputs. Fusion is significantly safer. In a failure mode the fusion reaction will lose containment and die out like a fire without oxygen. Fission rods will continue to produce heat & ra…

> fission rods will continue to produce heat & radiation in failure mode

Not all fission designs require solid fuel rods, e.g. LFTR, which coincidentally has a failure mode that is much safer than solid fuel fission reactors.

Re: Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly

#18

Post by sandworm101 »

dmitrybrant wrote: post #8

I'm not sure where people are getting this terminology of "unlimited" energy from fusion. Nothing in the universe is unlimited. The earth's supply of deuterium and/or tritium is not unlimited. It's also not infinitely "clean" energy. A fusion reactor is not a black box that is built once and never again maintained or rebuilt, or doesn't use any consumable components besides fuel. We already have the technology that g…

>> this terminology of "unlimited" energy from fusion.

All language exists in context. This isn't a math prof talking of 1/0-type infinity. This is a practical infinity, ie so much energy that we cannot contemplate how we would run out. With literal oceans of hydrogen at our feet, and more landing on earth daily in the form of comets/asteroids, speaking of infinities is understandable.

Re: Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly

#19

Post by credit_guy »

akmarinov wrote: post #3

Virtually unlimited clean energy like that would allow us to vacuum back the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reverse the damage we’ve done in the past 200 years, while allowing us to continue with our fossil fuel infrastructure. It’ll also enable unlimited desalination which would allow more crops and a lot more food, ending a whole mess of problems.

> vacuum back the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

For what it's worth, it apparently is much easier to scrub CO2 from sea water than from atmosphere.

Re: Nuclear Fusion Project, Iter begins assembly

#20

Post by sandworm101 »

nsl73 wrote: post #15
dmitrybrant wrote: post #8

I'm not sure where people are getting this terminology of "unlimited" energy from fusion. Nothing in the universe is unlimited. The earth's supply of deuterium and/or tritium is not unlimited. It's also not infinitely "clean" energy. A fusion reactor is not a black box that is built once and never again maintained or rebuilt, or doesn't use any consumable components besides fuel. We already have the technology that g…

Please, don’t act like nuclear fusion is a simple iteration of nuclear fission. It’s a fundamentally different process. Fusion would provide (much) more energy, use (much) less radioactive inputs, and produce (much) less radioactive outputs. Fusion is significantly safer. In a failure mode the fusion reaction will lose containment and die out like a fire without oxygen. Fission rods will continue to produce heat & ra…

The actual reactive core is safer, it cannot meltdown, but we don't know much about the support systems just yet. With all that energy running through the magnets, the pressures involved in the contemplated energy collection system, there is a potential for catastrophic failure modes. A steam explosion isn't nuclear bomb but can still kill. Fusion is safer than fission but I wouldn't yet call it safer than solar panels.
Post reply on HN