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

Fusion Power Plant Simulator

fusionenergybase.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#101

Post by leonidasrup »

DennisP wrote: post #73
leonidasrup wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the proliferation risks will be in future the reason, independent of technological obstacles or costs, why US will not allow to build fusion power plants in all countries around the world. Hybrid nuclear fusion–fission power plants have been already proposed and studied in theory. "In general terms, the hybrid is very similar in concept to the fast breeder reactor, which uses a compact high-energy fission cor…

Probably not all countries, but any NPT signatory has the right to build nuclear power plants, they just have to submit to inspections.

This is the basic promise behind the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" (NPT).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

In the text of the treaty there are promises to NPT signatories, such as:

Article IV "1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Tre...

But the hard reality of U.S. nuclear politics in regard to other countries can be read here:

"The Nuclear Fuel Cycle and The Bush Nonproliferation Initiative"

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/neff.pdf

"The world’s leading nuclear exporters should ensure that states have reliable access at reasonable cost to fuel for civilian reactors, so long as those states renounce enrichment and reprocessing."

"The 40 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group should refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technologies to any state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants."

For example when United Arab Emirates wanted to build the Barakah nuclear power plant, (supplied by Korea Electric Power Corporation, not by an U.S. company), it had to sign an the Section 123 Agreement with United States of America. As part of the agreement, the UAE committed to forgo domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93UAE_123_Agreement...

To be fair, it's not only U.S. who want's the control access to nuclear technology and nuclear materials. For example India wanted to become a member of Nuclear Suppliers Group for a long time. As of 2019, China has thwarted every attempt of India's inclusion into NSG and has made it clear that status quo will remain citing "lack of consensus" among NSG members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Suppliers_Group#India

Another example is South Korea. South Korea is constrained in its nuclear power policy by the 1974 Korea-US Atomic Energy Agreement. Only in November 2025 did the USA formally affirmed support for South Korea’s civil uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing for peaceful uses.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2025-12/news/us-supports-sou...

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#102

Post by leonidasrup »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #98
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, HVDC. Interconnect and buy power from somebody with more sun. Who is Japan interconnecting with, or any other country that doesn't trust its neighbors? What is Canada supposed to do when it's ~6000 km from the equator and might not want to rely on the US for electricity regardless? > Or just overbuild solar by a lot. It's cheap, so chances are having too much of it still works out economically. Solar i…

> Who is Japan interconnecting with, or any other country that doesn't trust its neighbors? What is Canada supposed to do when it's ~6000 km from the equator and might not want to rely on the US for electricity regardless? With space. By space-based solar power instead of HVDC.

I would really love to see your per kwh costs estimates. It currently costs about ~$2,700 to launch 1 kg of mass into orbit.

https://spacenexus.us/guide/space-launch-cost-comparison

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power#Launch...

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#103

Post by dale_glass »

willis936 wrote: post #91
dale_glass wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there's far easier solutions to that than fusion. For example, HVDC. Interconnect and buy power from somebody with more sun. Or just overbuild solar by a lot. It's cheap, so chances are having too much of it still works out economically.

Let's be fair here, we're trading one megaproject for another.

Yes, but we're trading a research megaproject that might not ever live up to its promises when it's done in 30 years, for a boring megaproject we can start right now and that will very quickly start producing power.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#104

Post by leonidasrup »

dale_glass wrote: post #67
the8472 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Storing renewables for a whole season is an unsolved problem at the moment. Countries at higher latitudes might want fusion for baseload generation during winter. And later it'll help with climbing the Kardashev scale.

But there's far easier solutions to that than fusion. For example, HVDC. Interconnect and buy power from somebody with more sun. Or just overbuild solar by a lot. It's cheap, so chances are having too much of it still works out economically.

We have currently only one long term, scalable, low-carbon, low material requirements energy storage technology: nuclear fission power plants.

In 50-100 year we will have another energy storage technology: nuclear fusion power plants.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#105

Post by AnthonyMouse »

laurencerowe wrote: post #88
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, HVDC. Interconnect and buy power from somebody with more sun. Who is Japan interconnecting with, or any other country that doesn't trust its neighbors? What is Canada supposed to do when it's ~6000 km from the equator and might not want to rely on the US for electricity regardless? > Or just overbuild solar by a lot. It's cheap, so chances are having too much of it still works out economically. Solar i…

> What is Canada supposed to do when it's ~6000 km from the equator and might not want to rely on the US for electricity regardless? Most Canadians live quite far south. Toronto is on the same latitude as France’s Mediterranean coast and they of course have plentiful hydropower. Solar is surprisingly useful even in more northerly places like the UK or Denmark since it is anti-correlated with wind power.

> Most Canadians live quite far south.

"South" in Canada is still north. Calgary (third largest city) is almost 6000 km from the equator. Toronto is the major city furthest south and it's still almost 5000 km.

> Toronto is on the same latitude as France’s Mediterranean coast

Europe is also quite far north. The Mediterranean has warmer temperatures because of ocean currents carrying warm water from the south, not because of its latitude. Toronto is at the same latitude as Wisconsin.

> and they of course have plentiful hydropower.

They get a little over half from that. You still need something to do the other half.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#106

Post by Tuna-Fish »

dale_glass wrote: post #67
the8472 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Storing renewables for a whole season is an unsolved problem at the moment. Countries at higher latitudes might want fusion for baseload generation during winter. And later it'll help with climbing the Kardashev scale.

But there's far easier solutions to that than fusion. For example, HVDC. Interconnect and buy power from somebody with more sun. Or just overbuild solar by a lot. It's cheap, so chances are having too much of it still works out economically.

> HVDC

Sorry, no. Our recent experiences during the energy crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine showed us that we cannot trust energy sources outside our own borders.

> overbuild solar

The effective sunlight in November in Finland is measured in single-digit hours per month. That's not a joke, or an exaggeration. Solar is completely out of the question.

Right now, the only carbon-free solution is fission. Fusion potentially adds another, but that's far off still.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#107

Post by dale_glass »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #106
dale_glass wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there's far easier solutions to that than fusion. For example, HVDC. Interconnect and buy power from somebody with more sun. Or just overbuild solar by a lot. It's cheap, so chances are having too much of it still works out economically.

> HVDC Sorry, no. Our recent experiences during the energy crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine showed us that we cannot trust energy sources outside our own borders. > overbuild solar The effective sunlight in November in Finland is measured in single-digit hours per month. That's not a joke, or an exaggeration. Solar is completely out of the question. Right now, the only carbon-free solution is fission.…

> Sorry, no. Our recent experiences during the energy crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine showed us that we cannot trust energy sources outside our own borders.

You could trust Sweden, Estonia, etc. since they're all in the EU. Also Norway. But overall good point.

> Right now, the only carbon-free solution is fission. Fusion potentially adds another, but that's far off still.

I've never been to Finland, but I'm sure there's some wind there too.

But on the subject of war, fission turns out to be a huge vulnerability for Ukraine. Fusion would be better but it'd still be extremely expensive infrastructure that could be very easily disabled. So from the war standpoint what's probably most beneficial is a very distributed usage of wind/solar.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#108

Post by L_226 »

derriz wrote: post #61

When people get excited about fusion as a source of energy, I’m always reminded of Henry Ford’s famous quote: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” although apparently he probably never said that. Fusion is that faster horse - promising a cheaper to operate firebox which when attached to a stream engine attached to an alternator can produce electricity. This approach to generat…

You should check out Helion (direct to electricity) - https://www.helionenergy.com/technology/

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#109

Post by Dylan16807 »

dale_glass wrote: post #107
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HVDC Sorry, no. Our recent experiences during the energy crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine showed us that we cannot trust energy sources outside our own borders. > overbuild solar The effective sunlight in November in Finland is measured in single-digit hours per month. That's not a joke, or an exaggeration. Solar is completely out of the question. Right now, the only carbon-free solution is fission.…

> Sorry, no. Our recent experiences during the energy crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine showed us that we cannot trust energy sources outside our own borders. You could trust Sweden, Estonia, etc. since they're all in the EU. Also Norway. But overall good point. > Right now, the only carbon-free solution is fission. Fusion potentially adds another, but that's far off still. I've never been to Finland,…

> You could trust Sweden, Estonia, etc. since they're all in the EU. Also Norway. But overall good point.

Your neighbors have winter at the same time as you. HVDC only solves this problem if it goes very far.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#110

Post by Dylan16807 »

adrianmonk wrote: post #40
cyberax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fusion power plants can't "melt down". The amount of plasma inside the vacuum chamber is just around a gram.

That's the joke, isn't it? A fission power plant simulator lets you have fun playing through a meltdown disaster scenario. A fusion power plant simulator is "worse" because it takes away the "fun" of meltdowns. The humor is in reacting to the simulator as if it were a game (some are, but this one isn't).

The first line reads as a joke, but then they actually ask if it's safe later in the comment.
Post reply on HN