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

Will we ever get fusion power?

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 309 posts

Re: Will we ever get fusion power?

#251

Post by Retric »

7thaccount wrote: post #248
Retric wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending a meaningful chunk of US electricity through HVDC lines is probably not that expensive. A hypothetical estimate of 100% NYC’s electricity from Southern Arizona to NYC across HVDC adds up to ~1,300$/per person for infrastructure that lasts ~50 years. East/west is even cheaper because people on both ends would want to move electricity. Florida solar kicks in early in the morning for California and California so…

The cost to build a loop of transmission across the entire US is EXTREMELY expensive. It costs billions just for short segments of transmission.

The only reason to build them is because they lower your total costs. Over its lifespan the value of power lost in transmission over a 1,000km HVDC line in regular operation is significantly more than the direct costs to build and operate one. But you can get a lot more efficiency building solar in Nevada vs the northeastern US which more than pays for those costs.

So, if by short distances you’re talking 1,000+km and 10GW then sure it’s billions. However, the US is only so big and Billion’s don’t actually mean much to move over 2% of the US’s total electricity.

Re: Will we ever get fusion power?

#253

Post by aristofun »

immibis wrote: post #46

I hope not. If we find a way to convert water into bitcoins cheaply, we will rapidly boil the oceans. This will be worse than global warming. The biosphere can re-evolve after a CO2 and temperature spike, but all known forms of life require water.

What a terrible perspective. So many invalid implications embedded in your ignorant comment

Re: Will we ever get fusion power?

#254

Post by cubefox »

grecy wrote: post #249
cubefox wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that prices are falling increasingly more slowly and that using solar+batteries to replace coal, gas and fission power plants will probably not happen.

> using solar+batteries to replace coal, gas and fission power plants will probably not happen That ship already sailed, many countries are already doing it.

No, no country is doing it because batteries are far too expensive to replace stable energy sources.

Re: Will we ever get fusion power?

#255

Post by DesiLurker »

Apocryphon wrote: post #101
DesiLurker wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI was also 30years away forever then it was not. its a function of dollar spent researching not fairy dust powered by hopes and dreams. problem is the problem seems so unsurmountable that private sector (until now) was never interested in exploring this and govt funding is really mostly about making things blow up. so there you are. all that said the fusion triple product neutron-flux time energy has been steadily g…

How long is AI away now?

by most estimates 4-7 years away.

Re: Will we ever get fusion power?

#256

Post by adr1an »

Probably nobody notices it, but the article called Juan Domingo Peron to be a dictator. I get it, some detractors might say that. But that's hardly the truth. From wikipedia:

> Perón is the only Argentine president elected three times and holds the highest percentage of votes (61.86%) in clean elections with universal suffrage.

Re: Will we ever get fusion power?

#257

Post by throwAGIway »

nindalf wrote: post #182
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It’s terrifying that people are using chatgpt for questions like this. Isn’t it obvious what it is and isn’t good for?

It's more terrifying that people have claims about things they didn't even check. Why exactly is it bad? Do you really think that a human quickly skimming few web pages is better than a bot quickly skimming few web pages? Or did you think it's pulling the data from its trained weights?

Re: Will we ever get fusion power?

#258

Post by zamadatix »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #216
zamadatix wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People slam this for being ChatGPT but I wonder how often the references it finds on the web are more relevant than ones in this [1] style of HN [2] comment that often get to the top of this type of thread yet lack any deep analysis either. Slamming it for not validating the sources support the claim at least makes sense but isn't really specific to the ChatGPT fixation. Perhaps somewhat telling on that is the commen…

The problem is that even when incorrect, typically someone intended the correct information to on a website. Where LLMs are just an inference of related words. So by your scenario, the LLM also picked up the incorrect answer on a website and included it into its inference. He isn’t downvoted for being lazy, he’s downvoted for using a language model as a fact model. Even if sometimes it does work.

The problem has nothing to do with how you're finding your sources and everything to do with the lack of bothering to verify and understand them properly. What does it matter if you got your source list from tea leaves so long as you validate the information in the sources?

Nothing replaces actually going out and verifying anything yourself (yet) but that doesn't make tools which do a first past somehow to blame for someone's laziness while tools that put no effort in at all are supposed to be just fine.

Re: Will we ever get fusion power?

#259

Post by Nasrudith »

nox101 wrote: post #126
Retric wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> over much longer time periods It’s not clear there would be much longer time periods. Build enough low carbon generation to guarantee a surplus every day and you have a surplus every day. Anyone claiming we need days worth of storage is inherently making an argument that days worth of storage is cheaper than simply building more generation and generation is really cheap while batteries aren’t.

According to several studies you need up to 2 weeks of storage, not just 24hrs, because checking on the long term, every decade or 2 you get 2 weeks of clouds or 2 weeks of no wind, etc....

Given the sheer thermodynamic effect of the earth's rotation I have to ask what would it even take to get 2 weeks without wind? It would probably take at least globe spanning superconductors or very careful heating of the world to ensure constant temperatures in order to not have wind from the temperature cycling. That is 'Dyson sphere builders fooling around with their power for laughs' territory.

Re: Will we ever get fusion power?

#260

Post by Dylan16807 »

dave333 wrote: post #247
Dylan16807 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Videos they make aren't good evidence of anything. Just send samples of one or two pieces that show off these improved physics. It would change the world, make them famous, and let them get them rich off of patents. No need to wait until they have a full working product. The only reason to hold back so much is that it's not real.

Videos are evidence of the many problems they have run into getting it to work reliably. One good reason to hold back would be intellectual property/stealth mode development. They have many patents but have had some patents rescinded after skeptics objections about "breaking known laws of physics" as if there is ever a final unimpeachable unimprovable laws of physics. Even so the theory is openly published and sample…

> the many problems they have run into getting it to work reliably

That's the thing, they don't need to get the system working reliably, they just need one little part to show off.

> They have many patents but have had some patents rescinded after skeptics objections about "breaking known laws of physics"

There's a good way to get those patents not rescinded...

> available to qualified parties

The only reason to play this game is because it's fake.

Post reply on HN