Nuclear-fusion reactor doubles record for energy made from fusing atoms • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by beowulfey » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 1:22 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #4

pixelpoet wrote: post #2

Excellent news, we need this so badly, especially now in Europe with Germany shutting down its nuclear (fission) plants and NS2 being cancelled. It's astonishing to me that the world isn't pulling out all the stops on fusion development, something like the space race or Manhattan project. Unfortunately, last I heard ITER building has halted: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2022/02/21/french-regulator-h...

Even if fusion succeeds in net positive energy (which is still a ways off - even ITER, planned to finish in 2030, will not actually generate energy, they didn't even add a turbine to try), there are huge hurdles to scanning it up. It's impossible for fusion to be a significant source of energy in the time left to avert catastrophic global warming. Even with the most optimistic estimates, we will at best have a handfu…

Fusion vs. renewables are not zero-sum. It’s possible to research one while supporting the other. All these fusion threads bash on fusion because renewables are here now, but in actuality fusion research and renewable rollouts can come from very different budgets.

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

#132

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 1:25 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #62

chmod775 wrote: post #54

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…

> So, to match power out, it has to be big. Really, really big.

Fusion has all of the characteristics of something you'll want to do if you are in space. Add to that the fact that its fuel is much easier to acquire than fission and that solar isn't available everywhere and you have a winner.

Meanwhile down to Earth, yes, most likely it will never be an important energy source.

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

#133

Post by DennisP » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 1:28 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #115

criley2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar and wind are not and likely will never be "wholly up to the task" unless you install about 4X as much as you need, which is quite the tall order and certainly changes the numbers. You might say "solar is cheaper per MW than fission" but someone planning your local grid sees "I need to setup 4X the solar MW that I do fission, and I need a battery solution as well" and the numbers look very different. A great exa…

Base load isn’t an inherent advantage it’s strictly worse than dispatchable power unless it’s cheap, and Nuclear isn’t that cheap. Which is a problem because excess wind and solar makes Nuclear power economically worthless for much of the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation#/media... Subsides could make up the difference for nuclear as could vastly increased nighttime prices. PS: It’s only when…

Those interconnects take a long time to build, mostly due to political opposition, and aren't that cheap either. For example, the 2GW 400-mile Southern Cross has turned out to be a 17-year project, costing $2 billion. https://www.eenews.net/articles/what-a-2b-texas-project-says...

They're not the only ones:

> the 732-mile TransWest Express high voltage transmission line filed its first permit application in 2007, but did not receive all of the approvals until 2020. The Environmental Impact Statement alone took eight years to complete.

Local landowners tend to object to these projects. On average, they take over a decade to complete and that includes much shorter lines, which are quicker. Building underground can help with political resistance but multiplies cost by 5X to 10X.

As of 2020, over 750 GW of proposed generation, most of it wind and solar, were waiting for transmission to be built.

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/challenges-decarbon...

China builds transmission a lot faster, and we might be able to speed things up with the SITE Act, which gives the federal government authority to override local and state resistance: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/07/america-...

But if our solution set can include unpopular new laws to override NIMBYism, then we can make nuclear a lot faster and cheaper, too.

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

#134

Post by willis936 » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 1:29 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #52

Are we actually learning new bits of fundamental science from these experiments? Are there still bits of these fusion reactions we can't simulate accurately enough due to insufficient compute? Or is it just a matter of ironing out engineering issues?

It's both in every case so far. Machines are made and operated to discover empirical data, but we invent the engineering along the way.

Computation is woefully insufficient for particle level simulation. If we had a proper model of turbulence that issue would be lessened. We don't have a full grasp on plasma physics. If we did we could point to a single stellarator geometry and say "that one".

The physics and engineering also interplay at many levels. Optimal decisions at every level take both the plasma physics and engineering into account.

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

#135

Post by yonaguska » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 1:29 PM UTC

parasubvert wrote: post #126

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Environ…

I agree with everything you listed, except the political quip in point (D). Most of these large projects are funded with federal dollars, and both parties have no shame in clamoring for that money. The comment you're responding to was concerning a bloated project in a blue state. The issue isn't red vs blue- it's organizational. Politicians don't see the intrinsic value of such projects so much as they see the value of money intended for such projects. Unfortunately, grifting has become such an issue that people are opposed to the undertaking of infrastructure projects, but usually their objections only extend so far as their own state lines.

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

#136

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 1:33 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #132

ncmncm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So, to match power out, it has to be big. Really, really big. Fusion has all of the characteristics of something you'll want to do if you are in space. Add to that the fact that its fuel is much easier to acquire than fission and that solar isn't available everywhere and you have a winner. Meanwhile down to Earth, yes, most likely it will never be an important energy source.

I must strongly disagree, particularly for DT fusion.

DT fusion reactors would be very heavy. ARC, for example, would have the weight of a couple of US WW2 destroyers. DT fusion delivers its energy as heat. A fission reactor would be far smaller, simpler, cheaper, and more reliable.

You might make the case for advanced fuels, but that likely means you have to get 3He from somewhere. I suspect beamed power will beat even advanced fuel fusion in all missions in the future (a weak prediction as I will not be around to see.)

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

#137

Post by Retric » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 1:36 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #133

Retric wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Base load isn’t an inherent advantage it’s strictly worse than dispatchable power unless it’s cheap, and Nuclear isn’t that cheap. Which is a problem because excess wind and solar makes Nuclear power economically worthless for much of the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation#/media... Subsides could make up the difference for nuclear as could vastly increased nighttime prices. PS: It’s only when…

Those interconnects take a long time to build, mostly due to political opposition, and aren't that cheap either. For example, the 2GW 400-mile Southern Cross has turned out to be a 17-year project, costing $2 billion. https://www.eenews.net/articles/what-a-2b-texas-project-says... They're not the only ones: > the 732-mile TransWest Express high voltage transmission line filed its first permit application in 2007, but…

That’s a solid point, but it only needs 3-4 years to build. “$2 billion project, proposed by Pattern Energy Group LP, likely won’t be ready until 2026 at the earliest, if construction starts in 2023.”

Nuclear also takes 4-6 years to build but can take decades to get permission to start.

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

#138

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 1:46 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #125

criley2 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah. Si monocrystalline PV modules fell in price by a factor of 4 from 2015 to 2020.

So many people talking about energy seem to be stuck in an obsolete past.

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

#139

Post by Paradigma11 » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 1:47 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #132

ncmncm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So, to match power out, it has to be big. Really, really big. Fusion has all of the characteristics of something you'll want to do if you are in space. Add to that the fact that its fuel is much easier to acquire than fission and that solar isn't available everywhere and you have a winner. Meanwhile down to Earth, yes, most likely it will never be an important energy source.

But you dont need a lot of fuel for fission and you also need many other things to keep a ship/station running. Isnt fuel in the ballpark of just one of many consumables that you need?

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

#140

Post by DennisP » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 1:58 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #4

pixelpoet wrote: post #2

Excellent news, we need this so badly, especially now in Europe with Germany shutting down its nuclear (fission) plants and NS2 being cancelled. It's astonishing to me that the world isn't pulling out all the stops on fusion development, something like the space race or Manhattan project. Unfortunately, last I heard ITER building has halted: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2022/02/21/french-regulator-h...

Even if fusion succeeds in net positive energy (which is still a ways off - even ITER, planned to finish in 2030, will not actually generate energy, they didn't even add a turbine to try), there are huge hurdles to scanning it up. It's impossible for fusion to be a significant source of energy in the time left to avert catastrophic global warming. Even with the most optimistic estimates, we will at best have a handfu…

We should really stop using ITER as the reference. SPARC uses the same plasma physics with newer superconductors, and is expecting ITER-level performance in 2025. Most fusion scientists agree with that assessment.

SPARC won't have a turbine either, but with a construction time of four years, it brings us a lot closer to the next reactor which will.