Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

nature.com

121–130 of 282 posts

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#121
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LCOE for utility scale solar is around $68/MWh while new nuclear is $88/MWh. The LCOE for grid storage of power (necessary addition to solar) is $160/MWh. Double solar with grid storage is as much as $300/MWh at the utility scale using globalized averages reported to NEA, BNEF, Lazard, IRENA 2018-2020. Obviously some countries will be a lot more or less on costs depending on their circumstances and location. Inte…

Nuclear is nowhere near that cheap, LCOE even with massive subsides in the US sees 2020 nuclear well past 160$/MWH and rising. Wind and solar are both under 50$/MWH LCOE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_energy#/medi...

The number I quoted is from the same Wikipedia article on LCOE that you used, and I used a globalized average as I said in my post.

Your $50MWh also does not include storage LCOE, and not including secondary costs for solar when Nuclear has no secondary costs is considered "a trick" to lie about solar costs.

Include the costs of gigawatts of Elon's lithium ion batteries, and include the cost of having to 2X-4X solar compared to Nuclear to account for variable solar output due to days and seasons, as I said, and your $50MWh becomes around $300MWh

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#122
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tokamak fusion can only ever be far more expensive, per watt and per watt-hour, than existing fission. Why?

The energy flux density in the most compressed plasma imaginable is orders of magnitude less than in fissile uranium. So, to match power out, it has to be big. Really, really big. And a fusion reaction chamber is a much more expensive affair than a fission pile: super high-tech materials and construction, enormous magnets (blasted by the hot-neutron flux output), piping for thousands of tons of melted lithium that ha…

I find it hard to believe that people would be seriously researching this if we already knew there could never be any sensible commercial application.

More likely we just don’t know the way to make it viable yet.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#123
post #17

As much as I enjoy reading this news. It is feels heavily sensationalized. "Smashes" the energy record. We're talking about a fusion generator here, that after 25 years of work, now manages to output 'double' the energy, to 59 MJ in 5s -like 20 MW- while requiring 180 MJ input power. Somewhere hidden in the article is the news that this could mean a input/output ratio of 10 in a full scale reactor, but that's also so…

Nope, this is good news. JET is a 1980s research project into how to contain a plasma and squish it enough to achieve fusion at all, not a practical generator. It doesn't have superconducting magnets, it runs on big lumps of copper, with limited cooling and no way of recovering output power. In the latest run, they achieved fusion and kept it running until JET ran out of power for its magnets . The plasma didn't touc…

I would be surprised if they do not keep pushing for the Q=1 record. This last campaign was in support of ITER. Now that DT operations have resumed they wouldn't go out without a moonshot.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#124
Battery prices are falling like a rock. Solar and wind prices are falling like a rock. EVs are going mainstream. Fusion is showing signs of progress after years of stagnation.

Oil and gas sales accounted for 68% of Russia's export revenues in 2013. That number is probably higher today. Oil and gas are between 15% and 20% of Russia's entire economy.

I really wonder if Russia's behavior is related to the impending end of the fossil fuel age. The Saudis and other petrostates lack Russia's military power and so they are instead frantically throwing money at crazy future-city projects and other boondoggles to try to build a future for themselves that is not rooted in oil and gas. Russia has nukes and a lot of conventional weapons, so maybe a militaristic path seems more viable to them.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#125
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is nowhere near that cheap, LCOE even with massive subsides in the US sees 2020 nuclear well past 160$/MWH and rising. Wind and solar are both under 50$/MWH LCOE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_energy#/medi...

The number I quoted is from the same Wikipedia article on LCOE that you used, and I used a globalized average as I said in my post. Your $50MWh also does not include storage LCOE, and not including secondary costs for solar when Nuclear has no secondary costs is considered "a trick" to lie about solar costs. Include the costs of gigawatts of Elon's lithium ion batteries, and include the cost of having to 2X-4X solar…

First demand isn’t flat, so 100% nuclear needs massive amounts of storage to reduce the number of nuclear power plants that would sit idle 90+% of the time. In the end something needs to take up the slack and nuclear doesn’t work by it’s self. If natural gas isn’t an option the only thing left is hydro which is limited or storage.

Your also trying to cherry pick numbers the Wikipedia article also lists “$164/MWh” for nuclear. I found the table you got those numbers from which included multiple estimates from 2018 that used data from 2015 and double counting very optimistic nuclear estimates. Frankly utility solar is already being installed at sub 2c/kWh in the US. 68$/MWh would be 6.8c/kWh which shows how far off your umbers are.

Anyway, I would be happy to see the power plant actually run that cheaply but your looking at very optimistic estimates for something that isn’t even online yet and is getting some serious subsides.

Having said that if you’re data is from “Source: IEA/NEA, 2015.” https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2018/7441-full-costs-2018-.... I can understand why you picked those numbers.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#126
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are forever smashing this or that record, on the verge of break-even, on track to producing free energy without nasty radionuclides. But it is always a con. If they ever do get Q high enough to make energy production conceivable -- it will need Q > 100, when said and done -- a Tokamak reactor will cost 10x much as the equal-grade fission reactor, and cost >10x as much to operate. As fission reactors are today no…

> fission reactors are today not competitive, and get less competitive by the day No, we are just incompetent idiots. This has nothing to do with fissions and everything to do with degradation of contruction and practical egnineering skills - now it takes 30 years and 100 billion dollars to make a small railway in California. Victorian England or China could do this without much trouble. The english-speaking western…

The west’s engineering skills are not in decline, though if you have a metric that indicates that, it would be interesting. Europe has not had USA-level problems with building a popular rail network, or other major works.

The main differences in costs and time from 150 years ago are:

(A) Accounting for Extrinsic Costs. as the nations have become more dense and more democratic, peoples voices need to be heard. Environmental, wildlife habitat, etc. are complex issues that have only become important in recent decades. People sometimes get tempted by authoritarian rule because they “get shit done cheaply”, but this is a ruse. By not engaging openly, there are often massive extrinsic costs, so the project is “cheap” by cheating and not counting the true costs. Europe seems to have streamlined this, the USA is still stuck in “might over right” political power struggles rather than compromises.

(B) Cheap labor. Most infrastructure doesn’t require large numbers of high skilled labor, it needs a mix of skilled and unskilled labor. The railways in the 1800s we’re built with large quantities of immigrant labor. This is in rarer supply in the West these days, for a variety of reasons.

(C) Labor rights and safety. Construction projects and rail projects were happy to bury dead workers by the wayside (or in the concrete of the Empire State Building). Or work them to unsustainable hours with limited pay. It took many strikes, some violent, to sort this out. Today’s standards don’t put up with that level of labor abuse.

(D) Investment sources. Many large projects were state funded, or were funded by investors with a lot of patience. That kind of patience is in short supply, as is state funding in the USA due to Republicans being Republicans. Europe seems to be able to pull this kind of funding off.

(E) Contract Grift. There is a lot more incentive and skill to slow roll and milk the cash flow of construction projects, given their complexity. Traditional large works were more vertically integrated and managed by those with incentive to see the job done, rather than paid by the hour. The solution to this is more vertical integration but that’s hard to pull off because of labor shortages.

I’d also note that China has a vested interest in publishing propaganda about its engineering and public works prowess while hiding its extrinsic costs.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow this is brutal but feels like it's correct. What a frightening state of affairs. Is the construction industry really so corrupt? Is government and industry unaware or unwilling/unable to detect this earlier and stop it?

I spent some fair amount of years as both a government employee in DoD and then some years as a defense contractor amd I can tell you the military industrial complex is a real thing. In my contracting days I worked with a handful of DoE engineers that were more familiar with reactor projects and as I understood it, reactor peojects basically follow the same type of workflow as any big DoD prohect. So OPs comment is m…

I've worked in fusion research and defense. MIC corruption and incompetance is quite high but virtually not present in the fusion research community. The researchers, you know, give a shit. They're not there to make a buck and milk the gravy train. If a machine gets greenlit then they pour everything into getting it to succeed because it might be the only research advancement greenlit in their life. Failure is always an option. Look at NCSX.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#128
post #17

As much as I enjoy reading this news. It is feels heavily sensationalized. "Smashes" the energy record. We're talking about a fusion generator here, that after 25 years of work, now manages to output 'double' the energy, to 59 MJ in 5s -like 20 MW- while requiring 180 MJ input power. Somewhere hidden in the article is the news that this could mean a input/output ratio of 10 in a full scale reactor, but that's also so…

As long as people keep researching it, progress will continue. Just ignore it until the first commercial plant is built and you won’t be disappointed.

Personally I find this news very exciting, but I’m a fairly half-full glass kind of person!

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fission is being built at all only for political reasons. People who build power plants on their own dime are shunning the technology. No merchant nuclear power plant selling into a competitive market has ever been built anywhere.

China will construct 150 fission reactors between now and 2035 to produce 200 gigawatts of power at a total cost of $440B. A similar buildout in the US would take 70 years and cost well over a trillion dollars. Do you think China is building all those reactors for political reasons as opposed to generating reliable power 24/7 for a century?

Do you think China does things without regard to politics?

They have clear political motivation to continue to build nuclear power plants. For example, this keeps their nuclear sector occupied and preserves the technology against deterioration. Even if civilian NPPs are not military, the overall technology has direct connection to their military (as it does in France.)

Even with that, they are installing more renewables than nuclear. And China is pushing aggressively to reduce the cost of hydrogen. They are now exporting electrolysers at I seriously doubt they will build that many reactors by 2035, btw.

Re: Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms

#130
post #3

Skeptical. This video by Sabine clearly explains why a lot of these fusion research claims are dubious with a focus on ITER and JET: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY

Spark notes on issues: Lies by omission.

- No mention of lawson criterion performance.

- Only 3 nuclear MCF machines ever (ie that even have a Q).

- Conflates MCF machines with ICF machines (ICF machines are funded under DoE's "nuclear stockpile maintenance" line item, not energy research).

- No mention of plasma self-heating. ITER is 50% shy of lawson criterion performance necessary for a Q=infinity reactor (if it were a stellarator).

Post reply on HN