Live data from Hacker News

MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

news.mit.edu

111–120 of 438 posts

Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

#111
post #107
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is projection. The irrationality is thinking that fusion is something desirable. I suspect this follows from exposure to fusion reactors as a trope in SF stories. From a hard nosed engineering point of view fusion is just terrible.

Please tell me how it’s terrible, Mr Hard Nosed Engineer ?

Low power density (at least an order of magnitude worse than fission), high complexity, need to maintain large complex objects for which hands-on maintenance is impossible and for which there are many parts for which no redundancy is possible. Fusion reactors are the opposite of "Keep It Simple, Stupid".

The engineering undesirability of DT fusion has been known for decades. All the recent excitement doesn't address any of the known showstoppers.

Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

#112
post #34

Plenty of skepticism in these comments. I've been following CFS for a while and can present a point of view for why this time might be different. Fusion energy was actually making rapid progress in the latter half of the twentieth century, going from almost no power output in the fifties and sixties to a power output equal to 67% of input power with the JET reactor in 1997. By the eighties there was plenty of experim…

You are right, people who flippantly dismiss fusion just don't understand it.

-Fusion has made consistent improvement, roughly in line with expectations for the level of investment (20 years away predictions were considering if we invested massively, which we did not).

- Fusion is in theory something that could give us true energy abundance. Want to just desalinate water like crazy? Want to extract gigatons of carbon? Working fusion enables these to happen woth existing technologies.

I like to think of solar, batteries, fission, and wind as compelling ways to go mostly carbon free and lower energy costs about 2x over the next 20 years or so.

Fusion is what reduces energy cost potentially another 10x, which really changes the game for lots of things. Exciting stuff. Kudos to this team.

Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

#113
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered: why exactly is ITER so expensive, and slow? Is the engineering required at such a standard that it should takes decades of planning and construction and tens of billions of dollars? The timeline is so dilated (started in 1988, first plasma planned for 2025!) it feels like the kind of project that's expected to be cancelled from the start. It just doesn't strike me as obvious that reducing the ma…

Anecdotally, ITER was the largest of few options for a fusion researcher to run their experiment in a new tokamak. Everybody wanted to put their work into it, and as more features were added, the more funding it sucked up, leaving less money for other experiments, leading to more people wanting to put their experiment into ITER. Here's a presentation [0] that goes over why SPARC, being so much smaller and simpler tha…

Sounds like politics more than technological. Although I guess it is unavoidable.

Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

#114
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered: why exactly is ITER so expensive, and slow? Is the engineering required at such a standard that it should takes decades of planning and construction and tens of billions of dollars? The timeline is so dilated (started in 1988, first plasma planned for 2025!) it feels like the kind of project that's expected to be cancelled from the start. It just doesn't strike me as obvious that reducing the ma…

Anecdotally, ITER was the largest of few options for a fusion researcher to run their experiment in a new tokamak. Everybody wanted to put their work into it, and as more features were added, the more funding it sucked up, leaving less money for other experiments, leading to more people wanting to put their experiment into ITER. Here's a presentation [0] that goes over why SPARC, being so much smaller and simpler tha…

The first step to correction is awareness right? Lets turn this tanker of human behavior away from these pitfalls.

Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

#115
post #34

Plenty of skepticism in these comments. I've been following CFS for a while and can present a point of view for why this time might be different. Fusion energy was actually making rapid progress in the latter half of the twentieth century, going from almost no power output in the fifties and sixties to a power output equal to 67% of input power with the JET reactor in 1997. By the eighties there was plenty of experim…

I've always wondered: why exactly is ITER so expensive, and slow? Is the engineering required at such a standard that it should takes decades of planning and construction and tens of billions of dollars? The timeline is so dilated (started in 1988, first plasma planned for 2025!) it feels like the kind of project that's expected to be cancelled from the start. It just doesn't strike me as obvious that reducing the ma…

I have a pet theory that the major cause for cost/time overruns on large projects is the cost constraint itself. In other words, attempting to do things on too small of a budget results in the overall cost increasing, not decreasing. I suspect that there are a few main mechanisms for this:

1. As budget constraints tighten, the number of man-hours spent wrestling with bean counters (and/or waiting around with nothing to do until the bean counter wrestling completes) increases exponentially.

2. "Cheap solutions" often end up being unfit for purpose, and have to be reworked later at great expense.

3. Budget overruns lead to time overruns which lead to more budget overruns, ad infinitum.

Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

#116
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a species of environmentalism that would consider successful fusion or similar high tech mega scale energy source actually detrimental because you can't build one in your hippy community using old tractor parts and alternative ways of knowing. Environmentally clean energy source is not enough, it needs to be ideologically pure as well.

This is projection. The irrationality is thinking that fusion is something desirable. I suspect this follows from exposure to fusion reactors as a trope in SF stories. From a hard nosed engineering point of view fusion is just terrible.

I can understand that from an enginneering perspective ITER is terrible, but fusion in general?

There are all sorts of approaches to fusion, and things such as type 2 superconductors were undiscovered 30 ago and uneconomic/unpractical 10 years ago. Timing control systems for magnetised target fusion were impossible but now are doable. Our understanding of plasma has been advancing a lot, simulations are good now, we can control plasmas much better. Chirped pulsed laser amplification is a thing now and really good at making high amplitude pulsed lasers for inertial approaches...

I could go on and on. This isn't the 90s anymore, and our technology is still rapidly advancing. What happens if we find more efficient/cheap/high power density thermocouples, or find a direct energy electrostatic power capture method?

Fusion's economic realities today may be overcome soon, we really do not know what we can do in even 20 years from now. The fundamental truth is that there is vast amounts of energy available in hydrogen, and all it takes is 100MK to ignite it.

Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

#117
post #34

Plenty of skepticism in these comments. I've been following CFS for a while and can present a point of view for why this time might be different. Fusion energy was actually making rapid progress in the latter half of the twentieth century, going from almost no power output in the fifties and sixties to a power output equal to 67% of input power with the JET reactor in 1997. By the eighties there was plenty of experim…

You are right, people who flippantly dismiss fusion just don't understand it. -Fusion has made consistent improvement, roughly in line with expectations for the level of investment (20 years away predictions were considering if we invested massively, which we did not). - Fusion is in theory something that could give us true energy abundance. Want to just desalinate water like crazy? Want to extract gigatons of carbon…

> Fusion is what reduces energy cost potentially another 10x

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

#118
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, ITER was the largest of few options for a fusion researcher to run their experiment in a new tokamak. Everybody wanted to put their work into it, and as more features were added, the more funding it sucked up, leaving less money for other experiments, leading to more people wanting to put their experiment into ITER. Here's a presentation [0] that goes over why SPARC, being so much smaller and simpler tha…

For NASA science probes, this cost increase and risk averseness spiraling is called when missions become "Battlestar Galactica".

I thought this was some joke involving Bears and Beets. Turns out it is an actual thing [1].

>In 1992, Dan Goldin became the NASA Administrator. Goldin believed in a philosophy of Faster… better… cheaper—i.e., he thought NASA could do more with less. Hence, Goldin did not support the idea of having large EOS platforms in space and in fact once referred to them as “Battlestar Galactica.” He believed smaller, less expensive missions that could be built more quickly were the way to go and supported development of new programs that actually diverted funds from EOS.

[1] https://eospso.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/eo_pdfs/Perspect...

Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

#119
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is projection. The irrationality is thinking that fusion is something desirable. I suspect this follows from exposure to fusion reactors as a trope in SF stories. From a hard nosed engineering point of view fusion is just terrible.

I can understand that from an enginneering perspective ITER is terrible, but fusion in general? There are all sorts of approaches to fusion, and things such as type 2 superconductors were undiscovered 30 ago and uneconomic/unpractical 10 years ago. Timing control systems for magnetised target fusion were impossible but now are doable. Our understanding of plasma has been advancing a lot, simulations are good now, we…

DT fusion looks bad even if you totally ignore anything related to plasma physics or magnetic fields. Simply handling the heat flow and neutrons from the reactor looks to make the reactor too big to compete, compared to fission reactors.

And then you have the problem of having to stick sophisticated stuff in the hot zone where hands-on maintenance is impossible (compared to a fission reactor, where just the fuel and relatively simple hardware is in that zone.)

Re: MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

#120
post #34

Plenty of skepticism in these comments. I've been following CFS for a while and can present a point of view for why this time might be different. Fusion energy was actually making rapid progress in the latter half of the twentieth century, going from almost no power output in the fifties and sixties to a power output equal to 67% of input power with the JET reactor in 1997. By the eighties there was plenty of experim…

I've always wondered: why exactly is ITER so expensive, and slow? Is the engineering required at such a standard that it should takes decades of planning and construction and tens of billions of dollars? The timeline is so dilated (started in 1988, first plasma planned for 2025!) it feels like the kind of project that's expected to be cancelled from the start. It just doesn't strike me as obvious that reducing the ma…

ITER is a victim of a process seen frequently in large public-works projects, but particularly those where no one understands what anything really should cost, and where there is no practical deadline for completion. It is worst when there is no expected utility when it is done.

We see it lately in the numerous military procurements (particularly the F-35 program), in NASA's SLS rocket, in California's bullet train to nowhere, and urban tunnels such as New York's 2nd Avenue subway extension. It is why nuke plants are invariably so expensive and late.

In a word, corruption.

Lately, this corruption has been arranged to be wholly legal, so there is no possibility of prosecution. The majority of the money spent is funneled into myriad private pockets without moving the project toward completion. Nobody involved, at the monetary level, has any desire for it ever to be completed, because that is when the gravy train stops.

Fusion projects represent the worst case of this phenomenon. Nobody knows what it should cost, and nobody in control of spending wants it over with, ever.

The chance that anything of any practical use could come out at the end was openly foreclosed before it ever started: it was never promised to produce any electrical power, and no turbines, or space for any, appear in any site plan.

Any sort of practically useful Tokamak plant would need to be overwhelmingly bigger and more expensive than ITER, and could never come anywhere near producing commercially competitive power, so the project is a known dead end, to be milked until it is finally cancelled in shame.

What is tragic is that each euro diverted to this boondoggle brings climate disaster terrifyingly closer.

Post reply on HN