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

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#111

Post by Dylan16807 »

hunterpayne wrote: post #86
gmueckl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ths is a massive misunderstanding of the technology. First of all, the amount of hydrogen in the reactor is tiny. The magnetic confinement severely limits the density of the plasma. The inner containment vessel is a ultra high vacuum chamber. The chemical energy that would be released by a reaction between the hydrogen in the reactor amd oxygen from the air would be less than what is released by popping a hydrogen fi…

You are ignoring that the plasma would ignite the O2 in the air. You are also ignoring what happens when several hundred MW of energy (at about 1,000,000C) under pressure is released instantly. Anytime you have a powerplant with enough energy to be economically viable, releasing that energy at once will be a problem. Even FF PPs can explode quite violently.

> You are ignoring that the plasma would ignite the O2 in the air.

What does this even mean?

> You are also ignoring what happens when several hundred MW of energy (at about 1,000,000C) under pressure is released instantly.

If you have a gram of hydrogen at a million degrees, it can continue putting out several hundred MW for about a fiftieth of a second.

Even if it somehow gets outside the machine with no heat loss to the structure, by the time it mixes with a few cubic meters of air it'll be down to 1000C or less.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#112

Post by Tuna-Fish »

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.

No. I wasn't just referring to loss of supply from Russia. What I was referring to was that when supply from Russia was lost, every country in the EU scrambled to secure their own supply, essentially competing on who could fuck over their neighbors the most. (It was Germany. Germany wins that prize.) No supply outside our borders can be trusted.

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

Finland is subject to a weather phenomena where a stable anticyclone forms over the country, resulting in a high-pressure system that's essentially still. In winter, this can result in weeks of dead calm during the coldest temperatures experienced in the country. We already have a lot of wind capacity, and whenever this happens the electricity prices spike sky high.

> 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.

We are a NATO member, and we have our own long range strike capability. If Russia directly attacks, Moscow will burn, which is why they likely won't. But Putin likes to play these hybrid games, where he tries his best to fuck over everyone without directly attacking.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#113

Post by tovej »

Gud wrote: post #95
tovej wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ITER is definitely the best bet for a workable fusion concept. There are some unsolved issues left, but its nothing compared to the sci-fi solutions most US startups would require.

Did you click the link? Nothing “sci-fi” about commonwealth fusion systems..

CFS is the most promising of the US startups. The reason being they have partially pivoted away from fusion towards superconducting magnets. Tbf their concept is also the most likely to succeed.

It is still more sci-fi than conventional fusion developments like ITER.

Source: I work in the field.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#115

Post by ForHackernews »

the8472 wrote: post #65
dale_glass wrote: post #16

A good addition would be the sales price per MWh, price for the power plant, and the loan interest rate. Because IMO all that is extremely critical. I fully support the pursuit of fusion as a scientific endeavor, but given that we're probably at least 30 years away from having anything approaching commercial deployment (assuming ITER is built, works, is followed promptly by DEMO, it works, and is followed promptly by…

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.

Pumped hydro is a great storage solution, as long as geography allows it.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#116

Post by molszanski »

dale_glass wrote: post #16

A good addition would be the sales price per MWh, price for the power plant, and the loan interest rate. Because IMO all that is extremely critical. I fully support the pursuit of fusion as a scientific endeavor, but given that we're probably at least 30 years away from having anything approaching commercial deployment (assuming ITER is built, works, is followed promptly by DEMO, it works, and is followed promptly by…

Anything we do has small impact https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=26.4...

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#117

Post by molszanski »

hunterpayne wrote: post #80
dale_glass wrote: post #16

A good addition would be the sales price per MWh, price for the power plant, and the loan interest rate. Because IMO all that is extremely critical. I fully support the pursuit of fusion as a scientific endeavor, but given that we're probably at least 30 years away from having anything approaching commercial deployment (assuming ITER is built, works, is followed promptly by DEMO, it works, and is followed promptly by…

"and we might as well just throw renewables at the problem now instead of waiting." We have spent about $10T on renewables over the last 20 years. We use more FF today than 20 years ago because renewables don't provide enough power to compensate for the normal yearly increase in energy demand (which is pathetic). The solution is nuclear (fission). It was the solution before we were born. It will be the solution after…

They are still a decent bet

https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=26.4...

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#119

Post by DennisP »

leonidasrup wrote: post #101
DennisP wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Good points, but in all of that they are specifically targeting enrichment and reprocessing, while allowing nuclear power plants.

A fusion reactor is a power plant. It produces neutrons but so does fission; in fact, conventional fission plants get a third of their power from plutonium that they breed from U238, and plutonium accounts for most of the long-term radioactivity in the waste.

By comparison, a fusion plant would have no uranium present for any legitimate reason, and assuming it's D-T it would need those neutrons to breed tritium. Tritium has a use in thermonuclear weapons but not without highly enriched fissiles, and tritium is also a byproduct of fission plants.

Re: Fusion Power Plant Simulator

#120

Post by nisegami »

the8472 wrote: post #65
dale_glass wrote: post #16

A good addition would be the sales price per MWh, price for the power plant, and the loan interest rate. Because IMO all that is extremely critical. I fully support the pursuit of fusion as a scientific endeavor, but given that we're probably at least 30 years away from having anything approaching commercial deployment (assuming ITER is built, works, is followed promptly by DEMO, it works, and is followed promptly by…

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.

I wonder if it will one day be practical to emulate photosynthesis and use renewable power, captured CO2 and water to produce biofuel that could then be used at a later time.
Post reply on HN