ITER: World's largest nuclear fusion project begins assembly

Post by vosper » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 4:57 AM UTC

nikitaga wrote: post #224

vosper wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously old coal powerplants are the worst, but there's more evidence every year that the allegedly "clean" natural gas is nowhere as clean as advertised once you account for fugitive methane emissions that in practice are largely untracked. And flooding the market with cheap fossil fuel like methane as a "transition fuel" – another marketing gimmick – will only delay the transition to renewables for obvious econ…

You know, what's not clear at all is that renewables will ever be cheaper than fossil fuels outside of a minority of markets. You're putting a lot of weight on that prediction but despite all the recent progress on costs, if that was going to happen anytime soon, climate change would largely solve itself. Wouldn't that be nice. Small modular nuclear on the other hand could be economically feasible in places that don'…

Post by valuearb » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 5:18 AM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #222

valuearb wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My software startup was a huge beneficiary of the SSC cancellation, it freed up a nuclear physicist to write graphics software for us, which became one of our biggest products. I’m in favor of pursuing basic research, but there is always a cost. When you take a group of your smartest people and focus them on non-economic activities, the economy loses something.

Its pretty presumptuous to assume your startup has economic value, and the SSC didn't. Plenty of completely economically worthless tech startups.

Post by valuearb » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 5:19 AM UTC

tyre wrote: post #207

valuearb wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My software startup was a huge beneficiary of the SSC cancellation, it freed up a nuclear physicist to write graphics software for us, which became one of our biggest products. I’m in favor of pursuing basic research, but there is always a cost. When you take a group of your smartest people and focus them on non-economic activities, the economy loses something.

> the economy loses something like…graphics software? I think the trade-off is more than worth it to better understand the nature of our universe. You seem to imply that basic research has no long-term economic benefit, or maybe that the long-term benefit does not outweigh the short term cost. That seems like a pretty difficult implication to defend.

Post by KingOfCoders » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 5:25 AM UTC

cwhiz wrote: post #88

andrepd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also a fusion power fanboy but >nuclear power is the only realistic way to solve the looming energy crisis of the 21st century while still maintaining the same standard of living for everyone This is just not true, there's no way you can say this. Solar costs are going down massively. Hydro is dirt cheap already. So renewables can absolutely be part of an energetic transition in the near future, while fusion is a…

I would like to see some models on how solar power could work in northern cities, or honestly any city. The NYC metro area has over 23 million residents and there is essentially zero space for a solar farm. In the winter it's cloudy almost all day and there are only 9 hours of sunlight. Rooftop solar is an option but the models I have seen show a theoretical max around 1,200 MW which is about 1/30th of the NYC metro…

Post by jandrese » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 5:32 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #134

petschge wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simple answer is that the surface only goes up a factor of 4 if you increase the radius by a factor of 2, but the volume goes up by a factor of 8. So the ratio of (energy containing) volume to surface (where energy get's lost) if getting better with increasing size. There is of course much more complicated answers, all the way up to full-device simulations using gyrokinetic codes like Gene or Gkeyll that take mil…

This is the main issue and I don't want to make it any more complicated. But I do want to explain something because people hear arguments between fusion scientists. Within the field no one really doubts that ITER is going to work (there's a few, of course, but the majority don't doubt). The thing they are arguing over is if it is needed. The big reason for ITER is not to generate power but to demonstrate that sustain…